Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 3 February 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations

Dear Administrators,
I find myself here practically forced to report a user that (despite various warnings) refuses to stop casting serious aspersions towards me.
The user in question, User:Astynax has been continuously casting aspersions of academic dishonesty, specifically accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content", against my editing account.

• Please see: .

Astynax defends his behavior by claiming that, based on the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBARG, the arguments brought up in the "evidence phase" of the case are valid to be attributed to the Arbitration Committee's voice & final decision.
Nonetheless, this perspective has been disputed both by arbitrator Salvio (see ) & administrator ES&L (see ). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio (): "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
• ES&L (): "Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error."

Moreover, not only have I tried to resolve this issue with Astynax, requesting him quite clearly to stop his aggressions (), but ES&L also tried to reason with him (). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page (): "Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity." Basically, Astynax refuses to drop the stick.
Due to this situation, I am reporting User:Astynax at AN/I for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND breaches.
Since the accusations made by Astynax are defamations, and he outright refuses to listen and get the point (), I believe an indefinite block is in order until the user agrees to stop casting aspersions (per the same principle mentioned by the Arbitration Committee) towards me and other editors involved in the arbitration case.
However, please consider my recommendation as nothing more than a suggestion.
Thanks in advance! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a very bad situation. I agree with the assertion that MarshalN20 was never sanctioned for POV-pushing or fringe editing; in fact, it's telling that ArbCom explicitly stated that Cambalachero was being sanctioned for POV-pushing but MarshalN20. Based on how long this same cast of characters and topic area have been popping up in various venues, I don't know that we're ever going to have peaceful editing for these editors until there are complete, all-around interaction bans. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply by Astynax: MarshalN20 lodged a request for clarification and amendment of his topic ban at WP:ARCA on the basis of his accusation that a Signpost article had misrepresented his role in an ARBCOM case in which he was topic-banned (he has since redacted his request and dropped asking for amendment of his sanction). As the Signpost piece in question seems to accurately present the case, I commented on the request for clarification and amendment, especially as the editor who authored the piece has a "retired" banner on his/her user page (the author has since commented at ARCA). I believe my comments in defense of the piece are accurate. MarshalN20 was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles, discussions and other content dealing with the history of Latin America explicitly for tendentious editing, which specifically encompasses PoV-pushing behavior, and for battleground behavior. Per the definition of tendentious editing used in the ARBCOM Final decision, "Tendentious editing: 8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site." Further, the Final decision states, "Locus of dispute: 1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America." (note that the case was raised only regarding the behavior of 2 editors: MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, as a result of which, both of whom were topic-banned from any involvement in articles, discussions or other content touching on Latin American history). Thus, it seems to my aged eyes that the Signpost article was on rock-solid ground. Topic bans are not issued for a mere 3 breaches, and I'm confident that ARBCOM took into consideration MarshalN20's behavior beyond the 3 diffs he prefers to cite in disputing the conclusion that he had engaged in tendentious editing and/or battleground behavior. Nor is there the slightest basis for his accusation that I (and others MarshalN20 has similarly accused) have been traipsing around Misplaced Pages spreading a "Black legend" Nor am I aware of why I have been singled out here and accused of spreading the purported "Black Legend". • Astynax 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Astynax You "believe" your comments are accurate, but you have been quite clearly made aware that they are inaccurate, and are contrary to WP:NPA. What you believe is irrelevant - you might believe the Easter Bunny is blue; so what. The proof was clearly laid out for you, but you insist on putting your own spin, and making bizarre allusions to policy - instead of actually reading exactly what ArbCom found as a finding of fact. You cannot add words, change words, or ascribe different meanings. You are continuing to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against Marshal, and you continue to repeat them ad nauseum. So, the real result here is one of two things (or a combination thereof): a one-way interaction ban and/or an indefinite block until you convince the community that you're prepared to stop attacking someone (or anyone, for that fact) willy-nilly across the project - and any unblock would require you to formally withdraw and strike all of your false accusations/personal attacks from across the entire project ES&L 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. As I quoted above, the Arbcom final decision did explicitly define "tendentious editing" as "engaging in sustained point-of-view editing". MarshalN20 was topic-banned for "tendentious editing" under that definition. Nothing has been distorted, either in the Signpost article, which I did not participate in writing, or in my comments on the accusations MarshalN20 leveled regarding the article's content and motivations at ARCA in yet another request to amend his sanctions. Your "proof" has consisted entirely of your own say-so, based upon a strangely selective reading of the Arbcom Final decision. Your repetition of MarshalN20's false charge that I have been attacking him "willy-nilly across the project" is made without a shred of substantiation. Other than my comment on the ARCA page, this is the only place I have commented on this issue—an issue instigated by MarshalN20 both there and here, and not by me. I find your belligerent tone, both here, on my talk and at ARCA to be highly inappropriate and unconstructive. • Astynax 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. I did not ask for an amendment to my sanction. I asked for an amendment for editors, such as Astynax, to stop throwing unjustified insults at me (i.e., drop the stick on a case that was resolved many months ago).
2. The three diffs I present are the same that Arbcom used to provide examples of the behavior I exhibited that they found problematic. None of those diffs justify Astynax's accusations.
3. The tendentious editing defined in this case has nothing to do with Astynax's repetitive accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content". In fact, Arbcom was concerned by my behavior in article talk spaces (to the point there is a principle on how talk pages should be properly used), and that is exactly what is shown in Arbcom's diffs. On the other hand, Astynax's accusations equate the matter with academic dishonesty, which is a serious WP:NPA breach.
4. Lastly, and this is where Wee Curry Monster's WP:MEAT statement should be taken into consideration, a prior WP:IBAN instituted among the parties (due to mutual "acrimonious" behavior) is directly related to the same accusations Astynax is now raising towards me. I would like to provide diffs that show how Astynax's accusations relate to the accusations that partially led to the IBAN, but that would breach my IBAN with the other party (maybe reading the prior IBAN situation might help: ).

Ultimately, the point here is that this matter concerns a resolved arbitration case to which Astynax was not an involved party (at least by the case's official page). There is no justification for him or others to continue casting aspersions on the parties, all of which received sanctions (some stronger than others) for their inappropriate behavior. Continuous aspersion casting, at this time, is nothing more than WP:GRUDGE and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes that should not be tolerated by anyone's standards (especially when considering WP:COMPETENCE and WP:REAL).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, seriously? You could have simply taken this time to apologize and move on, but instead decide to continue what various editors have identified as unnecessarily harsh insults.

You really don't even have to apologize. Simply drop the stick.

But, at this point the matter has gone well-beyond the point of return for you (or so it seems by your attitude).

Given this situation, I agree with Laser_brain & Wee Curry Monster that an interaction ban between Astynax and myself is an appropriate solution. Due to the continuous WP:NPA breaches, I would also recommend a block to not only stop the personal attacks but also set precedent on others who want to continue casting aspersions on this case.--MarshalN20 | 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not have to block anyone. The ideal outcome is that you and Astynax can edit in peace. However, I'm curious as to whether Astynax would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban so we can put this to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Laser_brain. Two-way or one-way interaction bans would be fine by me. I have no need to talk about or with Astynax on anything. He is not even a party to the arbitration case, which makes his continuous involvement all the more problematic.--MarshalN20 | 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Laser brain: Until MarshalN20 leveled his accusations against Neotarf and the Signpost article at ARCA last Saturday, I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban, so an interaction ban would be irrelevant unless MarshalN20 again raises similar baseless accusations. In such a case, I feel an interaction ban would unjustly prevent me from commenting or discussing with others. I have not distorted anything. I have not been incivil in commenting on and reiterating the Arbcom case and ruling at ARCA, and now here. I have not spun conspiracy theories about cabals bent on persecuting me or spreading "Black Legends". Showing at ARCA the basis for the statements in the Signpost article, which MarshalN20 considers a personal attack, does not rise to the level of NPA. MarshalN20 raised the issues and was the person who bumped up the arbcom case yet again, not me, and I am here simply because I commented on and disputed his allegations. I am completely innocent of the slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations by MarshalN20 and ES&L that I've been going around Misplaced Pages spreading false charges about MarshalN20. There is no factual basis in my behavior for MarshalN20's initial complaint and demand that I be banned, nor in the stuff he continues to pile on (I expect the kitchen sink to be thrown in next). I imagine this is stuff leftover from prior to his topic ban, as he has not pointed to a single incident other than my comments at ARCA, which themselves were responses to allegations he raised. A ban, even my agreeing to accept such, would be a blot on my otherwise fairly clean record. • Astynax 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all you're being asked is to stop your accusations and remove them from the places you made them. The request is not unreasonable, particularly when considering your claim that you have slandered me in only a few places. In fact, professional as they would be, apologies are not even required to resolve this matter. However, by outright refusing to do these simple things and instead deciding to continue casting aspersions, you are effectively piling stuff onto yourself.--MarshalN20 | 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax seems to have dropped the stick, which is good, but has persistently refused to recant his accusations.

This leads me to think that the problem is going to continue in the long-run, unless an interaction ban is placed between Astynax and both Cambalachero and myself.

I think it's for the benefit of everyone that this matter is resolved now rather than later.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly blatant meat puppetry here

Sadly as someone who has been on the periphery of this long term, I have to note there has been a long term history of meat puppetry associated with WP:BraC. I first became aware of this some time ago, when somewhat perplexed asked why the WP article on the War of the Triple Alliance (common English name) was named Paraguayan War (common name in Brazil). There I found User:Lecen recruited a number of editors from that project to vote in his favour of retaining the move he'd engendered to the fringe name. Enraged by my more than polite questions Lecen was eventually blocked for his combative behaviour and has nurtured a grudge ever since.

I have to note that User:Asyntax is often a proxy for User:Lecen (eg Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2012) and appears to be continuing the dispute between Lecen and MarshalN20 by proxy. There is already an arbcom sanctioned interaction between Lecen and Marshal, I would recommend it is extended. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation is what? You are hardly a neutral observer and have raised the Paraguayan War name change issue repeatedly since you and MarshalN20 failed to gain and rejected consensus. I am certain that uninvolved admins can and will investigate your puppetry charge, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with MarshalN20's incident report above. • Astynax 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I stated it above, but seeing Astynax' response, I'm appalled - it's clear that in order to protect this project - and its editors (even in heated areas), that something needs to be done. They are clearly attempting to discredit MarshalN20, and to drive him off certain sets of articles on Misplaced Pages as per WP:HARASS.

• Option 1: Astynax is subject to a 1-way WP:IB with MarshalN20
• Option 2: Astynax is indefinitely blocked until they supply a WP:GAB compliant unblock request, which must include a promise to immediately cease making further comments that cast aspersion on MarshalN20, and that they will immediately retract and strike all previous instances
• Option 3: Both Option 1 and option 2 combined
• Option 4: No action against Astynax

Discussion

• Unfortunate support of option 3 added: as first choice, option 1 as second choice ES&L 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• A standard two-way IB between Astynax and Marshal is a much more robust solution here. The one-way IB hardly ever works out well, except in the case of harassment-only SPAs, which Astynax doesn't seem to be. If my memory of this is isn't wrong, Marshal was initially given a one-way IB with Lecen, which was then made two-way because the one-way IB didn't work out well. Let's not prolong the drama by new one-way IBs in this area... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel a two-way IB may be later misinterpreted as reflecting mutual antagonism. I don't think this is the case here. The mentioned two-way IB was implemented on August 2013. The original case did not have any interaction bans. Arbitrator T. Canens wrote, "When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary" (). This IBAN was later breached, not by me, and with accusations that mirror Astynax's current claims (please see ).--MarshalN20 | 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps a one-way IB is more indicative of the issue and perhaps a better solution (see my reasons in my response to Someone not using his real name). It's important to point out that Astynax writes, "I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban" (). Indeed, I have not interacted with Astynax since the arbitration case closed. This makes Astynax's sudden re-appearance and unwarranted accusations (which are eerily similar, if not exact, to the "acrimonious" accusations that partially led to the IBAN of August 2013; please see ) all the more indicative of a WP:MEAT situation. Taking this all into consideration, it seems to me that Option 3 is indeed the best solution.--MarshalN20 | 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the other user that Astynax talks about in his messages, I have the same topic ban that MarshalN20 has. I usually prefer to deny recognition when someone says bad things about me, to avoid increasing drama. Still, I don't like to be periodically mentioned from out of the blue as if I was the root of all evil, or something like that. It's specially strange coming from Astynax, as I have not interacted with him since... well, I don't remember if I ever interacted with him personally at all (I only remember his name from discussions involving several users). Yes, I'm topic banned, but Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors clarifies in bold font that "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor." I have moved on since the topic ban, I chose other topics of articles to continue editing, I did not interact with the editors that supported the ban any more than strictly necessary, and I'm not going around wikipedia claiming to be a victim or a martyr. I expect people like Astynax to do the same and move on as well, but if he can't do that on his own, then an interaction ban should be needed. If I do not react when he accuses me of wrongdoings, that doesn't mean that I don't care Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation started out at the arbitration committee requests for clarification, but was withdrawn and brought here. Originally Marshal claimed he was being accused of "being a fascist" in the Signpost's arbitration report, but the reference to Fascism refered to the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos', who were associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. I have not examined these sources myself, but the claims seem well-referenced. If Marshal means to defend the use of these sources, it would seem he needs to find reliable sources that say otherwise.

There are already interaction bans in effect for this case, but it seems they are not working, as more uninvolved users are getting dragged into the dispute. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The enforcement (or not) of the interaction bans is currently under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There is no interaction ban between MarshalN20 and Astinax, the proposal here is precisely if it's needed to establish one, if doing something else, or if not doing anything. Cambalachero (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the ArbCom page, adding Neotarf to the mutual IBAN with Cambalachero and MarshalN20, should settle the matter for the foreseeable future. Since the latter two are topic banned, perennially bringing them into discussion is WP:DEADHORSE unless it's on some ArbCom page. I'm not sure why ArbCom has punted (or allowed this to be punted to) ANI. Probably typical bureaucratic delay or they couldn't decide what to do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A sensible solution would be to perhaps topic ban Neotarf from the "Argentine history" Arbcom case, and to institute a 1-way or mutual IBAN between MarshalN20 (myself) and Astynax. An IBAN between Astynax and Cambalachero would also be a logical solution to prevent further problems.--MarshalN20 | 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Option 1, for now. — ΛΧΣ 04:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:Bladesmulti: "Cambridge Uni fabricates sources"

Please see this: and (you don't have to read all of it. Just the ending paragraphs on this links)

I'm getting really tired of this user on Misplaced Pages who seems to have an infinite supply of stupid arguments that are obviously bordering on trolling and disrupting Misplaced Pages's goals. He keeps trying to remove a reliable source. He keeps claiming Cambridge University sources are "fabricated" because they are "reprints" of journals. He's also blatantly claiming that historian Simon Digby is not a historian despite the Indian Express and numerous other sources and evidences saying that he is. I've had it up to here with him. Have a look at this discussion, where it beggars belief starting from line 409. Other editors have also claimed that this user is being deliberately disruptive and making absurd claims on sources. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that he's attempted to WP:CANVASS twice, even after I gave him a warning not to (warning) (second warning). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I haven't looked into the whole situation yet, but I would like to suggest to you that referring to the person you're reporting as an "idiotic user" isn't the best way to start an ANI discussion. Erpert 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, it has been struck. The user is very disruptive to the point of trolling people. And I can't tell whether he is trolling me or doesn't have the intelligence to know that Cambridge journals are reliable sources. I'll strike it out. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, now I've read it. Although I agree that Bladesmulti seems to be doing what s/he wants to do, you are also getting unnecessarily heated about this. I mean, look at this diff you posted yourself: "Who the fuck cares" is borderline, but "How is someone this stupid"? I'm not excusing Bladesmulti by any means, but you might be heading for a boomerang if you keep responding like that. Erpert 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He is also, on Talk:Voltaire refusing to accept direct translations of Voltaire as "too old" to be accepted, nor does he acknowledge scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Gilles Ventaine as good enough for counter-claims towards his own, or declares that what Voltaire wrote that goes against his own view is "not notable". At Death by burning, he has been actively mis-citing the reference which clearly says one VERSION is that widow-burning became widespread as a result of muslim invasions, into an UNQUALIFIED assertion by Bladesmulti that this practice became widespread. He must understand he is disruptive, and that he has totally misunderstood rules relative to Primary Sources. He is basically saying they are UN-reliable.Arildnordby (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't mis-cited any sources. Just because your suggestions are accepted by no body on Talk:Voltaire. Doesn't means you be following complain on this section. Remember this page is not a forum, at least not about me. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did miscite Yang to vbegin with. Now you have removed Yang on VERSION. Furthermore, Lewis and Veinstein are PROMINENT historiansArildnordby (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly some topic ban sanctions are in order for this user. @Erpert I recognise what you're saying. Which is why I'm not saying anything heated again. But please understand that I've literally been at this ALL day and circular arguments by this user are very, very disruptive. It beggars belief why anyone would go to these lengths just to propagate his/her own view (for Christ's sake how can anyone say Cambridge Uni sources and journals are unreliable as well as fabricated as well as not existing?). If he's/she's doing this on other articles multiple times in a row as well as canvassing and not discussing anything then he/she deserves to get indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting sources. I can also attest to Arildnordby's words. One only has to look at the evidence of this user's history to know how disruptive he/she is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was brought to my talk page, in addition to ANI. After looking over Bladesmulti's edits (I count something like seven reverts on the same page in less than 24 hours,) I've gone ahead and blocked Blades for 36 hours. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now all that's left to do is to indefinitely block him/her for numerous source misrepresentations here, arguing for the sake of arguing, canvassing others to edit on behalf of him, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and mass disruption involving editing, edit warring and vandalism. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying "good" is gravedancing, and likely to get you blocked as well - this isn't a competition, and nobody should ever be happy that someone got blocked. If you want to try and deal with other behaviours, let me introduce you to WP:RFC/U ES&L 20:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. That's exactly what I need. I don't think of this as a competition. It seems an adequate measure against someone so disruptive. I take no pleasure in seeing users blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of the one of the three sources I can easily access, pg. 326 of 'The Police in India' does potentially support parts of the claims that Bladesmulti was using it for. I can see it being used to support the claim that "foreign invaders" commonly raped girls. I don't have easy access to the other two sources to verify what they say, but since the first source supported at least part of the claim, I'm not going to extend the block for source misrepresentation. If another admin can verify source misrepresentation and feels it appropriate to extend, they should feel free to do so. I'm going to go examine the other edits that took place on the persecution page now - the volume of them meant that so far I had only looked at Blades'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to them. It's odd you cannot access them (I could only partially access the one on the police but then how is a person who writes about the police an adequate historical source for foreign conquerors being rapists and thats why Sati happens? It's mandated in the Hindu religion). The one on page 611 was referring to nothing of the sort that he'd written and is easily accessible. Please try it again. You can click on the book to preview it's pages sometimes if it doesn't let you see it directly by link. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Books does not allow every viewer to view the same number of pages, or the same pages. I cannot view the relevant page on gbooks. Having reviewed the history at Persecution of Hindus, you made four reverts in less than two hours... editwarring isn't okay, even when you think the other editor is wrong. Since both you and blades engaged in a serious editwar, I've issued both of you the same block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• The user in question has been quite disrupting. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing,, , , , , removal of sourced content., , , , , , , , , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Being both quite busy today and, er, relatively new to having the ability to block people, I'm going to let my blocks stand as they are and give the users involved some rope for when they fade. That said, if anyone has the time to comprehensively review that diff set or other behavioral evidence and feels that a longer or shorter block is warranted, please feel free to modify mine as you see fit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Tobby72, who provide no reason behind any of these edits. But let me do it for you.

1. diff = Part of on going edits. It wasnt a based edit.
2. diff = It is relevant, but right now discussed. See talk.
3. diff = Had it confirmed from RSN right after a few hours.
4. diff = Whole thing is added as per source.
5. diff = Editor wasn't reverting any of my version.
6. diff = Common sense that "parsi" has to do nothing with "zoroastrian" population, It was removed after Talk page.
7. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material.
8. diff = Same as above. Population figure of a caste are irrelevant for that page, unless all of them are discriminated.
9. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material either. See talk page of Doctorkubla.
10. diff = Repition of same figures, non disputed.
11. diff = Even you agreed that figures were not accurate.
12. diff = Copyvio and undue.
13. diff = half of information was unsourced, seeked update. User agreed to resume my changes 2 days later, no removal of sourced information involved, because it had no source.
14. diff = Had agreed with other editor to resume the similar information, while keeping former paragraph as 2nd. What is disruptive after all?
15. diff = Simply needed better source.

Now what is tendentious or disruptive, they all are? Since you dont even know what was being reverted, what was being discussed, or what was being reviewed. Dont complain because you couldn't back up some of these most common issues, or that they are against your wishes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a very disruptive Hindutva-pushing editor. I suspect a sock-puppet of User:Hkelkar. On Talk:Voltaire he has mentioned Helen Blavatsky as giving credence to a viewpoint. His method is to take a viewpoint he wishes to advocate, to go through Google Books to try and find snippets that support his viewpoint, and then to accuse others of POV-pushing, hypocrisy, etc. when they call him out on it. He also clearly has insufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to understand the difficult philosophical texts that he advocates the use of (after finding them in Google Books). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith, It is interesting that one user is falsely complaining that i misrepresent source. Now itsmejudith is bragging 3 things, one that I always get source of everything, has more backup than usually other users, 3rd that i ask people to verify sources if they are unreliable/unknown. Oh and not to forget I am also a sock puppet according to him. Despite he is no CU for claiming so.

And there are no "other editors", it is only you. Since you are pushing the tumblr/facebook propaganda(you cant find other sources than that). It seems like you are trying to getting away from that, by objecting me. In the sense that you blank pages for a single ref with "copy right issue", or that you present primary sources with no page number, and 3 years old dead links.. Who is disruptive POV pusher then? You or me. Betting a million, you can't find such circus from me, anywhere on whole Misplaced Pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Your analysis of his methodology looks good. I assumed that he doesn't understand the word 'fabricate', and he certainly has struggled with understanding our policies and guidelines. You'd need diffs to raise an SPI. Otherwise maybe a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at User talk:Hkelkar left me with the impression that Hkelkar's command of English is better than that of Bladesmulti, so maybe some sort of ban is the best answer. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me jump in (although it might be out of place in the nature of this discussion) and say my piece. Blademulti is a problem editor. Across wikipedia they engage in battles and enrage editors over tiny things. The HEAVY POV pro-Hindu or Anti-Abrahamic thing is starting to be a problem. And while we all have our politics, when it is so single focused that it will bend light to win for the cause I think it is a problem. All over Misplaced Pages --Inayity (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He can't comment here whilst blocked. _Fortuna 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Inayity, nothing before these 3 days, about the rest, i won't even argue, since i have explained it above, already. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can, we have a process for that ES&L 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case, his block is up tomorrow morning. I'm thinking of formally proposing a site ban unless someone wants to mentor. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now run across this fellow in at least two other places besides the Voltaire mess. First there was a long disruptive argument over pantheism in eastern religions, particularly Shinto (see most of the talk page), which was then forum-shopped around when I complained that books on urban planning an military operations weren't reliable for this, not to mention one source which said the opposite of what he wanted to write. There were also big problems with his writing there which again he resisted tooth and nail. Now I've found that he moved Caste system among Indian Christians and added a long and completely misguided section on Western Christians, particularly focusing on the Spanish American casta notion, which the very first book reference I came across said was nothing like its apparent Indian cognate. I don't know whether has trouble following the material or is on a crusade, but his intervention into a lot of subtle and difficult material has been quite disruptive. What mentoring I've tried hasn't taken. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He has a history of declaring main establishment sources as fabrications. See for example his debacle on the stupid, long-forgotten Cox-Forbes theory on chess, of all things, when he declares the Oxford's Companion to the Game of Chess to be unreliable, because it goes against himself.Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, calm down, and stop defending. Try to understand what's bothering other editors. They are bothered. Just listen careful, hold back your initial responses for a while, think it over, and ask for further clarifications. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Site ban for Bladesmulti

After taking far too much time clicking on links, reading discussions and looking into this mess, I don't see any way out except to ban Bladesmulti from Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but I crossed paths with him following an AfD over Criticism of Jainism, where there was no shortage of tendentious POV-pushing on either side, as it appears there inevitably is in content disputes about religions – and he was actually about as close as anyone could be to being on the "right side" of the dispute. I've been watching the discussion here at ANI, and looked at some of the article talk page and user talk page discussions, and, while I fully support the enforcement of 3RR, I'm not seeing a sufficiently thorough examination of the issues on both "sides". Yes, there has been a history of low-clue editing, but there has also been a history of editors with a variety of POVs trying to get the upper hand, and the discussion here has been overly slanted toward criticism of Bladesmulti. Open an RfC/U, certainly, if you want. But we are far from being at the point where a site ban is even remotely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question - I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages. I don't know. I've also been surprised several times about his edits, and his interpretations. And I didn't dare to look further into his caste-edits. But there is also another thing I noticed, and that is the combination of, indeed, a "traditional" point of view on India and Hinduism, but also a willingness to open his mind and to take in info that contradicts his point of view. That's my impression. I found (and find) it remarkable, given the familiair stance in India-related articles. He looks to me like a young, intelligent and very enthusiastic person, who's got to develop more balance in this enthusiasm. And yes, I was also thinking about a mentor for him - and not me; I don't have the time to track all his edits. I think it would be wise if he limits his range of topics, and spends more time reading good books (from Cambridge University Press, for example). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Other editors have raised concerns that he may in fact actually be a sock too. If I can recall User:Indiasummer95 was a lot like this user and had multiple accounts. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at why this user was blocked on Misplaced Pages. WP:NOTHERE StuffandTruth (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indiasummer was anti-Islamic. There the similarity ends. His/her style of writing was different. S/he appeared to be pro-Christian, not pro-Hindu. The word "india" in the username refers to a porn actress, not to the country. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's hilarious. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• ban nothing personal and far worse have visited Misplaced Pages but we need to remember the effects on more senior editors. I was so worn down after engaging him I just stopped editing and bringing my expertise to the article. Look at him, 5 sec after coming back Look at him this is not someone who is here to learn, but ruthless push a fanatical traditional agenda. BTW ATR is not something I feel he knows anything about, but he is using it as a cloak push the POV. He cannot pause, will not stop, cannot hear. And what makes it worse is after all of this he pretends like there is no issue with his advocacy/POV pushing on wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Going from a 36-hour block to a site ban with no intervening edits is a bit excessive to me. Like major overkill excessive. Escalating blocks, yadda yadda. Site bans should always be a last resort. Doc talk 10:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can you see any change to his editing habits? The real issue why a ban is being discussed is because the user would not WP:LISTEN, in other words after all these reports and complaints he is still at it. Now I did not study psychology but if you look at what he does is THRIVE on conflict and agitation of users.You explain something in detail and he will write "you still have not explained it" --Inayity (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  An indefinite block, if needed, would be quite enough to handle this situation. A site ban is an overly extreme measure at this juncture. Doc talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I should have thought that through more. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller, for acknowledgement. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:Bladesmulti does not understand what a reliable source is. He uses circular arguments and keeps on edit-warring. (See Talk:Jainism_and_Hinduism#Society_and_Culture.2C_and_dundas) He completely misrepresents the sources and uses them out of context. He does not listens, nor reads the sources he himself brings forward. (See: Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views) Till now, he has shown no sign of improvement and continues his behavior. --Rahul (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue later went to DRN, and tell what had happened. Kindly update that too. And also on Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views., no one had agreed with your statement that "Dayanand Saraswati has no right to criticize jainism." Also, I never had edit war with you. There are always 3-4 users who revert your edits. Which can be confirmed by number of users such as Tryptofish, Jethwarp, Abhishikt and others. Tell me one single source that i misrepresented? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is an WP:RFC/U on Bladesmulti a redlink or bluelink? ES&L 15:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for Indefinite Block (as per several user suggestions above) - User has engaged in edit warring for the sake of edit warring. There is just too much evidence against him. An editor that claims reliable sources are NOT reliable sources deserves complete banning. Otherwise he's just dragging out the process for his pro-Hindutva bias. For goodness sake on Persecution of Hindus he argued Ali Sina (a racist and Islamophobe) was a respected scholar whilst at the same time declaring the work of Simon Digby false and fabricated. Now Sina isn't even a scholar of anything whereas Digby is an Oxbridge academic. His disruptions alone warrant banning from this site. It appears that conflicts for the sake of conflict. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Show me a diff where i said that Ali Sina is a "respected scholar". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've just noticed the user has started edit warring again. He's removing Digby's sources again whilst deliberately keeping in Lals in other sections of the article. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response: Can you bring it to Discussion instead, where it was posted few hours ago? No way i had any edit war. But added as per consesus on RSN as seen here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Bladesmulti is canvassing again to POV push (his third time within 48 hours). Also Blade, consensus was against you at RSN StuffandTruth (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more edit warring here (again), and adding POV (again) without any sources . StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Describe how it is disruptive canvassing? I am not spamming on unrelated user pages. But only seeking the opinion of involved editors. The RFC included that whole(on which there was edit war) are unrelated. Also I never did POV pushing or adding without sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS (this is the 3rd time I've told you to read it). Your attempting to seletively notify users to support your position and influence consensus. Anyone who is normally interested would comment. But you're trying to get support for your causes again. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't say that you can't link involved users in the discussion/dispute. You are basically saying that there should be dispute+solution between only 2 people. Not anyone else.

Read the damn policy again. Whether by messaging them through email, texting them, or linking their names you are still canvassing selected editors in order to support your view to influence consensus. The article has hundreds of editors in the past and yet you deliberately select a few. You're blatantly engaging in POV pushing. If you full well know about dispute resolution then why are you canvassing for the approval of several editors? StuffandTruth (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Find me one from "Inappropriate notification" Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, where I am fitting? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seen enough Alright - I have seen enough. Support Indef block for Bladesmulti - no to siteban. ES&L 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves Indef block only because some users disagree with the content? I am not stopping anyone to have their opinion, neither i am edit warring. Kindly, see the both sides. Indef block can't be made only because 2-3 editors disagrees with the edits. While making up falsely alleging too, such as WP:Canvass above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indef block because even when you're fully aware that your editing behaviour is 100% under the microscope, you're actually performing the EXACT same editing behaviours that people are complaining about. You're simply behaving like someone who WANTS to be blocked in front of hundreds of admins - so, you now should get your wish ES&L 16:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I haven't edit war anywhere before my last block, or after. Neither any plan for doing so. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See evidence above blade that you were engaging in edit warring again within 24 hours of your unblock. You reverted material on Digby as soon as you were unblocked and then again reverted edits on another page that I edited after engaging a recent edit war with me. The problem is you are initiating edit wars. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is 3 reverts on same page. I haven't made even 2 reverts anywhere. I got posts on 3 O, and RSN too. No way i am disruptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti Edit warring is not a minimum of three reverts. It is a common misconception but it is not true; WP:3RR is a bright line that, when crossed, will result in a block 99% of the time, but a single revert can be edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I haven't looked into your case so I don't know the relevant details, but when you have other experienced users telling you that you're edit warring you may want to consider taking that advice to heart. Nformation 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

BladesMulti is engaging in some of the worst trolling behaviour, on the most bizarre issues I'ver ever seen. He has a weird, unsupported idea that Voltaire never said "anything positive" about Islam after 1762, and that he never said anything positive of islam in Candide. Now, he refuses to acknowledge statements from historians like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein, the latter saying expressly that Candide does, include such. When I post DIRECT TRANSLATIONS from Philophiocal Dictionary, he either declares the excerpt as "too old", "unclear source".

This has NOTHING to do with legitimate content dispute by BladesMulti, it is a trollish refusal to accept perfectly uncontroversial facts that goes against his weird ideologies. I append a typical snippet of how he actually argues here:

Don't think he wrote anything about Islam in Candide, or Philosophical Dictionary. It is only 1756 where he regarded it to be tolerant than Christianity. Other 2 books are simply unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Eeh, I have already given you Veinstein's assessment.Plus extractArildnordby (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it can't be verified. Since both of the mentioned books are unrelated with Islam. Now i got sources that says that he criticized Islam in Philosophical Dictionary and Candide. But still it is not really notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is verified by at least by two of the most distinguished Orientilsts of our time, Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein. Plus with the direct extract I gave you from Philosophical Dictionary.Arildnordby (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernard attributed it to Candide, Philosophical dictionary? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a 2013 published translation too old for you as well? I am starting to get annoyed now. And no, Bernard Lewis, in footnote 22 specifies Bosquet and HadidiPhil Dict.Arildnordby (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Source is unclear. Can you print a link to a source that says he was Praising Islam in Candide, Philosophical Dictionary, and what he wrote there. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Arildnordby (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: More edit warring here . Bladesmulti, after his block, is back to his usual self (and now ironically claiming references are not reliable only because he's too lazy to look them up. He did this with the Digby piece until I made an easy search on Cambridge to show that he was lying, as he had claimed the source did not exist). He is deleting reliable sources claiming they are "not notable" and he's doing it above again with blatant POV pushing, refusing to let others edit and add differing opinions. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. It is quite evident from the evidence presented that Bladesmulti is unable to restrain himself, and that he will continue to edit-war and POV-push for as long as he has the capacity to. I'd also add that his evident lack of fluency in the English language would make his editing problematic, and the reliability of his understanding of sources questionable, even without such behavioural issues. While we can and should make due allowance for such problems where an editor is acting in good faith, the combination of stubborn POV-pushing and sometimes almost unintelligible postings makes any attempt at meaningful dialogue almost impossible. He is a net liability to Misplaced Pages, and we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page. Reverting the same material after being unblocked often leads to a block. And I'm beginning to think I've seen enough also. Today Bladesmulti writes at Talk:Persecution of Hindus "Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed." At RSN on the 26th he wrote "As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though" (and this seems to be correct, see . So his removal of the Medieval section from Persecution of Hindus which mentioned used Lal and Digby makes no sense. I still haven't seen an effort to justify his charges that the Digby source was fabricated despite asking him to explain what he meant. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and Dougweller. It was agreed by 3 people already, including the latest revert by Darkness Shines, seen here who is not a disruptive user either. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was not about the removal but your varying comments on Lal. You didn't respond to that or my question about your claim of a "fabricated source". Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I regarded it as Mistake before too, and now. I should hadn't had suggested so. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He removed it because of wording not because of you and your ridiculous arguments/behaviour (see here). This however, still doesn't excuse your blatant bullshit about how Cambridge University is not a reliable source. Or your CANVASSING. Or your POV-pushing. Or your lying. Or your removal of reliable sources for no apparent reason. Or your edit warring. Or your ignoring the advice of many users on this and other pages. Or your attempts at not discussing anything. Or your lack of understanding of the English language. Or your trolling and circular logic. Or your potential sockpuppetry. Or your inability to follow policy. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval, and tell me how many people are against your proposal/edit Also, how many in favor?Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, my support for the ban proposal was based on the evidence presented as a whole, not on one incident. That you appear not to understand this - or refuse to acknowledge it - merely serves to reinforce my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, there is certainly no other incident for now. Other guy cited a 4 days old edit, by acclaiming it to be "edit warring", "after he got unban" despite it was non-disputed single edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave three examples today that you edit warred. So stop blatantly lying because the proof is outlined above. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

None of them falls in Edit warring, 1 edit(not even revert, which was by everyone and implemented) is all what you had for claiming edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You continued the exact same edits that led to your block. As such, it was considered an extention of the original 3RR - you don't get a reset button. Once was enough ES&L 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you do realize that the more you talk, the evidence against you grows stronger. Don't you? --Rahul (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller told you twice now Bladesmulti: "You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page." Evidently this lack of acknowledging his warnings shows that you are incapable of understanding policy or those that want to help you. This gives further credence for you being indefinitely blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone is now massively reverting in favour of User:BladesMulti on Sati (practice), REMOVING, for example, scholarly material on limitedness of the explanatory power of Muslim invasions as principal drive behinmd increase in sati.Arildnordby (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi's version, is what I had reverted to. But since you have mentioned here. I would like to add that neither your version is any good, neither Rjwilmsi, or bladesmulti. Best one was from 7th January, like i had told on talk page, few minutes ago. OccultZone (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's always a serious thing to block an apparently well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but I am seriously troubled by the evidence presented on this page, especially the discussions at Talk:Persecution of Hindus and Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory, where Bladesmulti makes inappropriate accusations against other editors, either due to his inability or unwillingness to understand the nature of the sources presented, which all appear to be first-rate. I don't know if this is a language barrier or a behavior issue, but whether it's a matter of WP:CIVIL or WP:COMPETENCE, I think this has gone on too long. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel.. You know that Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory is irrelevant, it was one of my first edit here. And no one seems to be disagreeing with me on Talk:Persecution of Hindus. My suggestion has been implemented hours ago, by 3/3 users. It is over. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not your edits were correct, it is how you conduct yourself in these discussions. Accusing other editors of "fabricating" sources, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

About the implementation of the edit. It was for different reasons we have decided to exclude it for now. No one was listening to your silly arguments and no one took any heed to your concerns because they were bullshit ridden. So no. It's not over. It's your disgusting conduct and constant edit warring that's gotten you in trouble. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again StuffandTruth.. I am not edit warring anywhere, anymore, and you have finally agreed with the edit as well. What is left now? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site-ban but may support block. Suggest that because at least two people are willing to mentor Bladesmulti, but that the vast amount of edits Bladesmulti seems capable of are overwhelming the WP:CHOICE of the potential mentors, we offer Bladesmulti a deal: five edits per day maximum, and no editing outside the User:Bladesmulti login, until they learn the meaning of WP:RS and friends. The trouble is that their wikithusiasm is outstripping our capacity to temper their efforts with experience, methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User talk:74.192.84.101, I am 100% ready to lower all my edits to only 5. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm happy to help you and Joshua get you turned into a lean-mean-wikipedian-machine. Thanks for your good-faith response. The faster you learn, the faster you will be back up to full speed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence above points that even if that happened his level of English is too poor and his constant edit warring such a problem there would be no point in wasting time/energy etc on him. He is just too incompetent to understand and frankly him ignoring all the people on here including the admins advice shows that mentoring is likely to achieve nothing. Especially as his behaviour and conduct are deliberate. And further, an IP commenting on this is rather strange, and so too is the quick response of Bladesmulti to your suggestion IP. I'm just sayin. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• My my my! Anxious to see a ban here, eh? Any conceivable WP:EW is *easily* controlled at 5 edits/day. English competence ain't all that crucial arond heer, plenty of WP:WikiGnomes to keep mainspace nice and grammarized. Outside mainspace, ideas and hard work at finding sources matter more than grammar. Bladessmulti works hard, and some of their ideas are good, from what I've seen Kevin and people at User_talk:Drmies say about it. Bladesmulti just needs some mentoring on how to communicate effectively, and how to avoid edit-wars. You, on the other hand, need some advice on WP:NICE. Best strike your accusation that the conduct is deliberate. Best strike your accusation that the human person is incompetent. And best withdraw your WP:ASPERSION that I am a sock. This is AN/I my friend, and unlike myself, you are WP:INVOLVED in a content-dispute with Bladesmulti. Better go read WP:AGF and WP:IMAGINE again, please. If you prefer policy to guidelines and essays, try WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFACTIONS. You can call me 74. Don't call me IP, it is an insult in these here parts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I apologise if I misconstrue Bladesmulti's ulterior motives for yours, however there is reason in my suspicion. I will however not apologise for the truth. He is incompetent as other users have said here and his actions are deliberate to the point of trolling (I need not repeat the evidence above), and he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of English (see the earliest links I posted and Dougwellers pieces above. Again it centres around simple understanding, or there lack of, of words such as "fabricate"). There is simply no one on this planet that can Cambridge does not fabricate sources. You are going waste your time mentoring this person as he refuses to acknowledge how bad his behaviour is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

JJ - 74 asked me to co-mentor Bladesmulti diff. I'll have to think that over. You're all aware that I'm slightly in favor of Bladesmulti; that's because I've also seen him change his mind, and because he's sometimes like a little puppy-dog jumping around in his enthusiasm. But I'm also well aware that he's got a certain, let's say, preference for Hindutva-like points of view. That's his good right, but when it regards Misplaced Pages, I'm quite allergic for that, as some have also noticed. So I don't know if that makes me the best mentor - conduct and content may get mixed up. Or is it exactly the oppposite, and does this make me a (potentially) good mentor? I don't know. I'll have to think about this, at least one night. Best regards to everyone around here; I understand the frustrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is very generous with thanking others, not just when it is directly supportive of his views, or when related to it. He has a few blind spots, and can be extremely annoying to argue against (refusal to acknowledge scholarly material going directly against seems to be main probl.), but if you, or other mentors, guide him onto understanding this, he will be a very valuable editor to keep on Misplaced Pages. Precisely BECAUSE of his strong engagement, but he mustn't let that engagement cloud his judgment.Arildnordby (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This user is a POV pusher and a disruptive editor as indicated by the evidence above. It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Pursue SPI, give the mentoring a few days, and then see what happens. This situation is a real mess, I have to say, but I'm still uncomfortable with acting upon the accusations that are being made, because the more I look, the more I see editors with POV issues on both "sides" here. There's speculation in the subsection below, about sock or meatpuppetry, but absent an SPI case, it's just that, speculation. Open the SPI, get a checkuser involved, and find out, one way or the other. And let's give the proposed mentoring a few days. Not a long leash, but a little time to see where it goes. If it proves unproductive, then go with the block, not the ban. But before we decide to block, we need to discount a significant percentage of the wall-of-text here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Suggest that *if* the SPI does turn up other names/IPs that are the same human, we indef all but the "main" one, and transfer the mentorship to that "main" user-talkpage. Bladesmulti has made two good edits since the mentor-clock started, and a third person has potentially offered to assist. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a hands on mentor, already in action now, can do loads of good for this user.Arildnordby (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Mentorship may work for Bladesmulti; perhaps some time should be allotted to see if that works. The seriousness of the site ban suggestion appears to have convinced Bladesmulti to change his ways. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• More Support for Indefinite Block - This user goes too far in pushing fringe POVs. In my experience, Bladesmulti tacked on countless references to articles that did not contain any material supporting the edits and as a result wasted countless hours of my and others' time with his non-stop disruptive editing and edit warring. This user is unconcerned with reality, makes false accusations, makes circular nonsense arguments, and plays Misplaced Pages like it is a game. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems strange. You might have problem with the edits. Having a look at your edit history, you just removed the sourced content, "fringe paragraph", without gaining any consensus. On that whole page you seem to be making red edits for months. Have you read.. "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." When you edit years old edit, you should not certainly remove them, and follow WP:DNRNC. But you seem to be edit warring, and not adhering WP:NPOV. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually that paragraph was removed months ago for failing to receive any credible citations for something like a year and recently added back by this user, Bladesmulti, who added a bunch of sources that did not at all support the paragraph content. I was reminded of it here and proceeded to remove it again. Granted, I should have better explained that. NaturaNaturans (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship -- About 2 or 3 mentors now. One of them willing to comment everyday. No need of anything else. Bladesmulti probably forgot WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY for which he was blocked. But he doesn't seem to be desperate. And willing to cooperate like Binksternet has pointed. Noting his agreement of "5 edits" on article pages, a day. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship I've butted heads with Bladesmulti a number of times. The user can be a bit annoying in deleting sources for odd reasons, and a little argumentative, however I found Bladesmulti quite able to change opinion. If the urge to edit the article rather than the talk page first could be countered I believe Bladesmulti could be an asset. FMMonty (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Mentorship - I hesitated before to say anything about this, but also I found Bladesmulti quite able to change opinion, and this mentorship- well, it can can work. Hafspajen (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
• Mentorship I don't mind co-mentoring him if needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Comment Interesting to note that quite a lot of the people supporting a ban/block here have a red link to their userpages. I don't think this guy deserves a ban or a block. I have worked on a few articles with him, observed his edits. He just needs some guidance, polishing and he'd be as good as any of us out here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone and Bladesmulti Sockpuppet?

I have been, at Sati (practice) been exposed to mass removal of all my material, by User:OccultZone, ALL of it well referenced. I am falsely charged of what I have said, which, even it had been correct, should not be removed since it is a SCHOLAR I have cited here. But, in addition to experiencing mass removal of well-referenced content, OccultZone lays FALSE charges against me on content included. I strongly believe this is a revenge action, made through a SockPuppetry tactic.Arildnordby (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence: similar circular arguing and source removal. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If not a sockpuppet, I would highly suspect OZ being a meatpuppet. Erpert 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kindly decide. I am a sock of User:Indiasummer95, or User:OccultZone or User:Hkelkar. Been alleged with about 3 by 3 different users. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppet/Sockpuppet is most likely User:OccultZone. We've already established you can't be the other two since your level of English is amusingly poor. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock, and you had best stop with the personal attacks lest the boomerang smack you one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. We have already established his level of English is massively poor. Others have even pointed this out. His bizarre assertions Cambridge University has "fabricated" sources has still not been justified. He refuses to even answer why he has made claims such as these. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines. This user, seems to be repeating same wheel over and over. While making series of false allegations as well. And StuffandTruth, I NEVER SAID that "Cambridge University has "fabricated".." How many times you will present FALSE information about me? You still haven't even backed up that I called "ali sina is great scholar" either, like you claimed previously. I only said that you fabricate source, when you had presented nothing. While you had claimed that I "Misrepresent source" or "Make fantasy claims", yet there was already a source. And I presented 3 more. So? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Removed by mentor. Do not respond to StuffAndTruth please. Go read WP:CGTW instead. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary resolution

I'm not asking to close this discussion, but I am suggesting that we take a pause while the mentoring is being given a try. 74 seems to be making some good progress with it, and I hope that we can wait and see how it works out. As for the SPI, I suggest that someone start it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring should go its course here, before anything else is considered.Arildnordby (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with the obvious caveat that if it doesn't work out then we reconsider. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I fully agree with you; I just didn't make that clear enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for one's own cultural history is a really good thing in order to bring others to notice of the diversity and richness of that history. As long as that becomes coupled with a care not to stringently oppose other views, such enthusiasm is a very valuable asset in an editor like Bladesmulti.Arildnordby (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, especially with doug. And Bladesmulti, politely, I advise you to adhere the guidelines i had mentioned above. WP:Be thoughtful and kind, and also WP:Be nice to the vandals if you assume any. The test is temporary, you will learn a lot. Noteswork (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at SPI. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bladesmulti. --Rahul (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• The SPI is closed, more or less inconclusively. I gather that no CU was run. I have something of an opinion, but it's very general: Bladesmulti's behavior throughout this thread is difficult, esp. on the edit warring bit, where their remonstrations border on tonedeafness and a total lack of understanding of what edit warring is--or they're just not listening. Part of the disruption is caused by the large number of pages and talk pages where they're active (and restricting their number of edits could be very beneficial, maybe via a 1R restriction or something like that); another part is caused by shall we say a lack of proper syntax, which makes reading and responding to comments difficult. For now, I am happy to accept their good faith, and perhaps the combination of an editing restriction, a stern imperative to proofread and grammatize, and some mentoring will alleviate this situation. So maybe this thread should be closed for now, if enough editors/admins agree that Bladesmulti is not being disruptive anymore. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Following up on that, I want to draw attention to the fact that, despite a lot of heated talk here at ANI, a more thoughtful examination at SPI concluded that the behavioral evidence of socking was too weak to justify a checkuser investigation. In other words, the evidence of socking, when viewed dispassionately, really was not that compelling. So let me make some editors who have commented here aware of WP:BOOMERANG, for future reference. That said, I also think that Drmies' assessment of the editing problems is correct, and that it's important that the mentorship lead to improvements, lest we find ourselves back here again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn and civility

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

Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been sanctioned before his lack of civility, and seems to be at it again. This edit in a CFD discussion is a direct personal attack on the nominator. That sort of thing has a chilling effect on discussion.

It is quite right and proper that editors can disagree in a discussion, and that they should weigh things differently. But to open a discussion with an assertion that "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking" ignores the possiblity that the other editor is aware of those facts, but disputes their importance and/or relevance to the matter in hand. It creates a hostile environment, which deters other editors from participating, and impedes consensus formation.

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Alansohn (2008), Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed decision#Alansohn_restricted (2008), and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions.

Alansohn's block log for incivility and personal attacks. In the last year, his civility has improved, but his recent contributions show him returning to an old habits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding incivility or a personal attack in the first link ES&L 09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Breathtaking, in fact! _Fortuna 09:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, really staggering. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't think of any situation where people were meeting around a table and it would be considered appropriate to say "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking". Not unless the meeting was descending into a fight.

But if it is considered acceptable here, then that's how it is. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BHG, seriously, haven't you got anything better to do?? How is that uncivil? It's simply an expression of annoyance at the (perceived) ignorance of another editor, very common on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"ignorance" = "a lack of knowing about a topic". How is saying "the continuing staggering display of lack of knowledge on this topic is breathtaking" a bad thing? I'm absolutely ignorant about how the inside of a computer CPU works, or why people think hairless cats make attractive pets. Go ahead - call me ignorant about those things ES&L 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The "chilling effect" here is an admin robustly objecting to mild robustness in debate, and apparently seeking a block, citing a block log that has been clean for over five years as evidence of chronic incivility. Can this system be called just if editors are harassed in this manner over blocks made over five years ago? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn can be a pain in the tuckus, and uses some salty language on occasion, but that goes for most many old timers here. Sorry BHG, I don't see much here that is blockable, though I wish that Alansohn would tone it down some. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my comment at the CfD in question, but my remark was directed at what I perceived to be an overall tone of Holocaust trivialization, not just in the nomination, but most specifically User:Obiwankenobi's remark "Being a holocaust survivor certainly is defining and often a source of fame/notability", which Obiwankenobi himself apparently realized was in exceedingly poor taste and struck out (see this edit). Having met and spoken at length with several hundred Holocaust survivors and their children, I found the tenor of these remarks from what I see as those who make light of The Holocaust to be viscerally offensive. I can assure you that the original comments I had planned to write while I was still nauseated by the remarks were far, far stronger and only ended up as they did after several revisions. I will certainly endeavor to be as polite as possible in dealing with such situations in the future. I hope that some of those who believe that they have any understanding of the impact of The Holocaust on the children of survivors would read Art Spiegelman's Maus series (among the hundreds of other such books) or maybe just read the relevant articles on Misplaced Pages before passing judgment with what comes off as condescending off-handedness. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a thicker hide than some, and I wish he would tone it down and not go on so, but I don't see the linked passage as bad enough for some sort of sanction. That said, this response is verging on crossing a line. I do not trivialize the holocaust; it stands as one of the greatest enormities of modern times. But we are now heading into a kind of special pleading in which every other enormity and all the pains of others are being trivialized in comparison. Alansohn needs to respect that others do stand at some distance from this horror and cannot be expected to express the same visceral reaction, and that our perspective on this is not diminished because we do not. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I assure you I never meant to make light of the holocaust nor trivialize it. FWIW, I did not strike it because it was "in exceedingly poor taste", I struck it because I didn't realize one interpretation could be that people were "cashing-in" on their status as survivors, which was not my intent, but Shawn pointed this out and I struck it accordingly; by "fame" I simply meant "the condition of being known or recognized by many people" - and not "fame" as in celebrity. I think you're taking things too far here. I have read the Maus series, I have a copy on my shelf, and have also visited death camps in Poland and Lithuania, and I assure you, that's not something I will ever forget. Again, you (and others) seem to be arguing that by !voting for deletion of this category, we are somehow saying that being the child of holocaust survivors is trivial or uninteresting or unimpactful - but that's not what we're saying at all, if you'd read the arguments presented. There is a difference between "of massive impact on your life" and "defining", and it does not trivialize the holocaust to claim something may be A but not B.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I too don't find Alansohn's remark sanctionable, not by a long shot. He is far ruder in the thread further down, where his accusations of antisemitism towards AndyTheGrump are completely beyond the pale. Now those do deserve a sanction. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

• I agree. The Internet Tough Guy meter was about 5 in this thread, but he dialed it up to about 9 down there. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree a bit. Andy's choice of words gave me the initial impression of anti semitism on his part. Alan should have asked for clarification before grabbing a rope. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn should get a medal for his patience and continued participation in the caustic environment at wp:CfD. The chilling effect on discussion there blows from a different direction. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) (who tried to participate but gave up)

AndyTheGrump, unacceptable speech

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

I am posting this here because beyond a certain degree abrasiveness becomes unacceptable. An edit summary for a post on our WP:BLP/N reads: "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll". The post refers to "clueless Jew-tagging troll". The same post also reads: "Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls". This is unacceptable. We have policy that covers this: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA. I don't think the User is unaware of such policies. This level of speech does not promote the functioning of this project, which is highly editorially-interactive. I am quoting abrasive speech. I think it is obvious that such speech hampers editorial interaction. In a later post in the same thread the User posts: "I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Misplaced Pages to publish lies." If he/she is not interested in "collaborating", does that somehow justify the use of abrasive speech? Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Useless complaint. AtG is an inveterate example of general incivility who merits weekly trouts, and Bus Stop has an endless record of supporting the categorization of people by purported (ethnicity/race/nationality/religion) and of having lengthy discussions on talk pages and drama boards thereon. After a week or three of chronophagous discussion here, the above will remain true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (restoring accidentally deleted post)

What about the unacceptable tagging of people as belonging to a faith when they state that they don't practice the faith? Sounds like ... trolling ... an attempt to generate nastiness and battlegrounds. Not excusing anyone actually calling a spade a spade, but hey ... ES&L 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Trout (edit conflict) Andy for calling another editor a troll and daring them to take it to AN/I, and Bus stop for making an AN/I almost a week later without trying to resolve the situation first. the rest would be a content dispute. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Bus Stop's history and block log, it appears that he has been edit warring and engaging in tendentious editing over tagging individuals as Jews since at least 2007. While AndyTheGrump should strive to be a bit more diplomatic, if the shoe fits.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User should be told sternly in the voice of the Community that the terminology "Jew-tagging" is unacceptable speech at Misplaced Pages. The unacceptability of the term goes beyond other issues such as whether or not I as an editor should be presenting arguments in support of or in opposition to the identifying of individuals in our encyclopedia as "Jewish". These are separate issues. In fact any dispute over the "Jewishness" of a given individual cannot receive a proper discussion in the presence of abrasive terminology. "Jew-tagging" is an example of abrasive terminology. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I have used that phrase? Probably not. However, I'd recommend reading the long and tedious thread, where Bus Stop has spammed a discussion regarding the appropriateness of placing 'religion: Jewish' into the infobox in our article on Jordan Belfort. I say 'spammed', because his entire argument is, as is almost almost always the case when Bus Stop gets involved in such discussions, that WP:BLPCAT (and indeed Misplaced Pages policy on sourcing in general) doesn't apply when describing Jewish people, and that the complete lack of any evidence that Belfort is of the Judaic faith is no reason for us not to tell our readers that Belfort is Jewish by religion. In the process, he cites a website, "Judaism 101" for material (not on what Belfort actually believes, or about Belfort at all, needless to say), despite having had it pointed out several times in the past that it is a personal website written by someone who states that ""I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" , and quite clearly not a reliable source for anything beyond the opinions of the non-expert. He then goes on to cherry-pick an article in the Economist which discusses the complex issue of Jewish identity (without discussing Belfort, naturally) for a statement about Jewish identity - utterly ignoring the fact that the article makes clear that this is a contentious issue, with no agreement amongst differing Jewish communities and traditions. And ignoring entirely, until I pointed it out, that said Economist article states that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion" - adressing the very point at issue, that it is entirely possible to self-identify as Jewish (as Belfort clearly does) without being 'Jewish by religion'. And on it goes. With Bus Stop arguing inter alia that 'Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs"' - yes he really wrote that (citing no source, naturally) after explaining in long and tedious detail why the beliefs of Judaism in general (or rather the beliefs of his cherry-picked sources) are more relevant to what goes into an infobox on Belfort's religion than Belfort's own opinion on the matter. And so it goes on. Interminably. With Bus Stop at one point objecting to the phrase 'Jewish by religion', despite previously citing an (off-topic) CNN website which used the phrase "Religion: Jewish" regarding Henry Kissinger, and despite the fact that Bus Stop was arguing that we should say exactly the same thing in the infobox for Belfort. (Personally, I'd have said that, where it was properly sourced, and relevant - as WP:BLPCAT requires - 'Religion: Judaism' would be more appropriate, but since it wasn't, I didn't). Bus Stop insisted (for no reason whatsoever, as far as I could tell, beyond facile Wikilawyering) that the phrase "Jewish by religion" was "gibberish", and that I was engaging in "original research" when I used it. He demanded that I provided a source that used the phrase (though of course he'd already cited the Economist which had) - which needless to say I located via Google in no time at all - from the Times of Israel website. And so it goes on. And on. And on. Bus Stop has a long history of engaging in such facile and interminable Wikilawyering over how we describe people with a Jewish background, almost all based on arguments to the effect that because Jewish tradition has particular definitions of who is Jewish, such traditions are 'reliable sources' that trump the person's own self-identification. Not only is this a complete and utter inversion of WP:BLPCAT (which is of course part of WP:BLP policy), but it is also intensely disrespectful, leading another contributor to write "I am Jewish. I have no religion. If anyone argued and edit-warred to include Jewish as my religion in an infobox, I would hit the roof. It is no one else's role to determine this for me, and the fact that their definition would include me is of no more relevance than is the fact that Mormons, I understand, retroactively convert the ancestors of converts to their religion. Would any editor insist that, because the Mormon church considered the deceased parent of a convert to be a Mormao, then this category should be included, as their religion, in an infobox?" And not only does it violate core WP:BLP policy, and not only is it disrespectful, but it fails to take into account the well-documented and more or less self-evident fact that Jewish identity is a complex and contested issue, and that accordingly Misplaced Pages shouldn't be making 'rulings' as to who is Jewish and how: though of course there are many other good reasons not to do that anyway. In summary then Bus Stop was arguing that regardless of what Misplaced Pages policy says, and regardless of Belfort's own opinion on the matter, Misplaced Pages should assert that he is Jewish by religion. Or, in plain words, that Misplaced Pages should lie to its readers in order to satisfy Bus Stop's obsessions. It is my considered opinion that his tendentious Wikilawyering advocacy of systematic policy violations needs to be stopped, and that an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy. He has been engaging in such behaviour for many years - and as far back as 2007 was community banned over his apparent insistence (despite copious evidence to the contrary) that Bob Dylan had never converted to Christianity. . There are multiple further instances of such tendentious behaviour scattered over multiple Misplaced Pages talk pages - Ed Miliband and Adam Levine spring to mind as prominent examples - and he clearly isn't going to stop until he is obliged to. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you question whether you should have used the phrase, and you admit that you probably shouldn't. That's great. The problem is, Bus stop had previously raised this issue with you before in 2011, and you've been using the term "Jew-tagging" since that time. So, you were already aware of the problem, yet you continued to use the term for many years. Personally, I don't have a problem with the term, but Bus stop did, and others do as well, as this discussion demonstrates. With that in mind, it does seem like you are trying to bait Bus stop into some kind of reaction, knowing full well that he feels insulted by your terminology. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved. We now have the issue of Bus Stop, and I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging itself can be resolved easily enough, once it is discovered - it can be reverted forthwith as a WP:BLP violation - the real problem is Bus Stop's disruptive abuse of article talk pages etc to promote such violations. It seems self-evident that he engages in such behaviour in order to grind down opposition with his repetitive Wikilawyering and refusal to acknowledge that Misplaced Pages has explicit policies on the subject. He needs to be topic-banned from any discussion on the subject too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Bus Stop's complete disregard for BLP and WP:V, I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User likely will be deploying similar language in the future because it works. It serves a purpose. The User says "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not." Such language has a Chilling effect, inhibiting further discussion. It is serving a purpose therefore the User will likely use it again. And other Users will also understand this behavior to be acceptable. The terminology "Jew-tagging" should not be permitted except where justifiable. The User is not using it to serve any defensible purpose. I hate to propose censorship, and I am not entirely doing that. There is a right place and a wrong place for any terminology. But this User is only deploying the terminology "Jew-tagging" as an epithet to discourage response. This use should be discouraged. Existing policy already clearly supports this. WP:NOTBATTLE already cautions us against "nurtur prejudice, hatred, or fear." Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If his intent was "to discourage response," it sure backfired on him, didn't it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another example of Andy being brought up for what out of context would be unacceptable speech, which is however rendered understandable given the circumstances. {Andy, this is problematic: I really want to dislike you and your speechifications, but all too often you're right. Still, if you baited your opponent into ANIing, that's not OK.) I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what I support here, but I will say that Andy's suggestion, a topic ban from discussing the subject, is the only suggestion that actually addresses the problem. A topic ban from tagging doesn't address the real issue, and almost certainly without further evidence a total BLP ban goes too far. The real problem here is Bus Stop's exhausting everyone with interminable arguments complete with ever-shifting goalposts. Andy's suggestion addresses exactly this and no more. It's surgical.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm going to note a few other recent interactions I've had with Bus Stop that show extremely difficult to work with and stubbornness on talk pages in general, not just BLP issues. (example Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2). Clearly the issues with this being BLP weigh a lot more in this favor, but this is just a continuation of a problematic editor that seems to rather spend more time on talk pages than article improvement. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy that AndyTheGrump said "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not.", but I disagree with Dougweller that this means that "the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved." I think AndyTheGrump should be blocked or voluntarily refrain from editing for a week for making such comments. Regarding Bus stop, I think the issues raised here should be discussed in an Rfc (either about the issue or about him as a user), and that this forum is not the right place to investigate this. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many. --John (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

John—let me call your attention to the aptly titled thread from 2012 The Jewish issue (again. In it you and "AndyTheGrump" carry on with the same offensive language that I am calling to our attention in this thread. You say "There is no need to be offended by the term "ethno-tagger" unless you are one." Aren't you part of the problem? As an administrator you seem oddly tolerant of "AndyTheGrump"'s reference to "infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging" in that 2012 thread. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have a slightly more nuanced suggestion.

There are three issues here, the content dispute, AndyTheGrump's behavior, and Bus Stop's behavior.

1. ANI does not hand down rulings on content disputes, and Andy has been here often enough to know full well that a wall of text that is mostly about the content dispute is wasting everyone's time. Being right does not excuse bad behavior, and being wrong doesn't make bad behavior worse. Give Andy a stern "TSK TSK" and a finger wag, or possibly a very small trout for this.
2. Bus Stop's behavior is clearly harmful to Misplaced Pages, and he has repeatedly shown that he is utterly incapable of conforming to Misplaced Pages's policies when the topic involves Judaism in any way. Give him an indefinite topic ban with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas.
3. AndyTheGrump's behavior isn't anywhere near as harmful, but it is wrong, he knows that it is wrong, he doesn't care, and he counts on the fact that many administrators do not consider his behavior to be a blockable offense. There is a long history of one admin blocking Andy followed by another admin unblocking him.

Because of the above, I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy. First a warning so he knows what is going to happen, then one day, then two days, three days, etc. I also suggest that if anyone disagrees, they should discuss it now and seek consensus rather than engaging in further block/unblock cycles.

This is close to what has been suggested above, but I think it is a bit more nuanced and better addresses the recurring conflict between admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate the nuance. Let me nuance a bit more (or less): this isn't about a conflict between admins, since admins are just as conflicted about civility blocks as regular editors. As I hinted above, Andy often goes too far, but that's "too far" in my opinion. Now, I'm more liberal (if that's the right word) than many others; if Andy gets blocked for a civility infraction I might not protest, though a block for "Jew-tagging" I will not agree with, since this is ridicule than disrespect. But I don't like the idea of escalating blocks, even though I can't quite explain why it rubs me the wrong way--I guess it's the suggestion of the robotification of blocks. Maybe. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bus stop has been adding category tags to articles based on sources that identify the individuals as Jewish. User:AndyTheGrump has been removing / edit warring over these category tags, asserting that the sources don't support the claims. There's room for a principled disagreement here. But AndyTheGrump has shown a complete inability to act appropriately, best exemplified by this edit, with the summary of "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll" in which AndyTheGrump goes on a rather lengthy and extremely offensive anti-Semitic rampage in which he attacks Bus Stop as a "a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll" provoking Bus Stop to take this "to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll", insists "that Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls" and talking about "your Jew-tagging agenda", an edit that crosses a line of decency that is entirely unacceptable. To call AndyTheGrump's behavior merely "wrong" is a drastic understatement of gigantic proportion. Malicious personal and religious attacks of this nature call for an extremely lengthy block of several months to years for User:AndyTheGrump, if not a permanent ban, not only for this utterly offensive incident but on top of a rather chronic behavioral problem that has resulted in a lengthy series of blocks. Once the AndyTheGrump issue is resolved, Bus stop may have a more productive experience dealing with editors who are willing to work on a collaborative basis. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the above entirely unwarrented accusation of antisemitism, I formally call for User:Alansohn to be blocked indefinitely. Meanwhile, anyone interested can check my edit history, and verify that I have been involved in no edit-warring over categories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, don't be silly. Drop the drama. Alansohn appears to be a very poor reader of the hyphen, and their histrionics are just so much noise. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments are not antisemitic. Then please explain to me your word constructions involving the word "Jew". We don't find "Jew-tagging" as terminology used beyond the borders of Misplaced Pages. We may have the need to come up with new language to discuss our unique working methods. But "Jew-tagging" is harsh language; nobody would want to be a Jew-tagger. As much as possible you should be using standard English. I think you should simply steer clear of inventing compound terms including the word "Jew". I'm not easily offended. But that terminology is offensive. If you don't find language used by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources, it is a good indication that you should think twice before using that language here. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you find the terminology offensive, perhaps you should consider whether the practice might be seen as offensive too. But you already know that it is, after User:RolandR, who also self-identifies as Jewish - and nonreligious - pointed out how personally offensive he found attempts to impose religious categories on others to be. . I note that you failed to respond to his post. Perhaps you could explain why you chose not to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any type of block or ban at all against User:AndyTheGrump. He has now had several weeks to apologize for calling me a “patronising little troll” lacking “an ounce of human decency” who should “Peddle your filth elsewhere.” But no apology whatsoever. On the merits in the present instance, Bus Stop is wrong and Andy the Grump is right (as I have already said at BLPN). However, Grump exceeds all bounds of decency, and undermines the project with baseless personal attacks. As a Jew, and a veteran of the US Army who served in Germany, I am utterly appalled at Grump's foulmouthed tirade at me, ostensibly because I have some sort of callousness toward victims of the Nazis, which is patently absurd. I have warned Grump before to tone it done in his interaction with other editors, as have countless others, and I have now had enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone kindly tell me who's being anti-Semitic? I really want to know who I should hate. Meanwhile these two have made an unmitigated disaster of the BLPN board. Can an admin tell both of these annoyances that their antics are causing a disturbance on that board and to get a room and let the adults go about their business?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's not a good idea to put out a fire with gasoline. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like to see "Jew" tossed around as a pejorative in any context, but Alansohn, there's a gulf of difference between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e. what was actually said) and "you are a Jewish troll, tagging biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e what you are insinuating). Tarc (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's a huge gulf between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (what may have been intended) and "I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll" (what was said on multiple occasions by User:AndyTheGrump). Use of the word "Jew" in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis, and that's the definition of anti-Semitism. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As everyone is clearly aware, it is Bus Stop who insists on labelling people as 'Jews', not me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Grump was not being antisemitic himself, but rather was implying antisemitism on the part of another editor. And anyone could be Grump's next target. Maybe it will be User:Bbb23 for reverting religion back into the Jordan Belfort infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My intent was certainly not to suggest that Bus Stop is an antisemite - as far as I'm aware, he self-identifies as Jewish, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt this. He is however clearly obsessed with labelling people as Jewish, and will go to inordinate lengths to argue a case for such labels, even when clearly inappropriate. As for Bbb23, I can't see evidence of any such edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no big difference between calling Bus Stop an antisemite and what you called him. Bbb23 diff here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit made 11 days ago, and already reverted? You seem to be pulling 'evidence' out of thin air. As for what you 'see', your perception seems to be driven by what you want to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your campaign of insults at BLPN has been going on so long now that you don't even realize the section of BLPN was precipitated by that edit of Bbb23.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. The section at BLPN was 'precipitated' by Bbb23 raising the edit there himself. I actually only participated in the discussion after I noticed that Bus Stop was yet again citing the very same unreliable source to back up his arguments. As my second post made clear, I had little enthusiasm for getting into what would inevitably be a long and tedious debate. With hindsight, I should probably have followed my instincts, and left the discussion for others. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to be able to rid Misplaced Pages of the relentless policy-violating ethnotagging, tagging-by-religion-(unsourced) and the like all on my own, and I rarely get involved in such discussions lately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, Bbb23 brought the matter to BLPN when his revert (the one you forgot about during your interminable tirade at BLPN) was itself reverted. Now go and take the last word if you like, because I have nothing more to say to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see why the tern "Jew-tagging" is considered offensive. That is exactly what is happening here; editors (in this case Bus Stop) tagging people as Jewish, without reliable sources for such a tag. Andy is not making any comment, positive or negative, about Jews; he is commenting on those who seem to be obsessive in classifying others as Jews. It is this Jew-tagging that is offensive, and in my view antisemitic, not the act of pointing this out. I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. And I would vehemently oppose any sanctions against Andy for opposing this Jew-tagging. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not true. As far as I know, Bus stop believes he does have reliable sources to support his tagging. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Bus Stop believes - or at least argues - that a reliable source for a living person being identified as Jewish is sufficient to label the person as Jewish by religion. WP:BLPCAT is however entirely clear that such sourcing is unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, since it isn't a source for what is being stated at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on both parties. For those that don't know or for those who aren't keeping score, AndyTheGrump and User:Bus stop have been having this particular epistemological argument for almost four years at last count. Both parties have presented their arguments ad nauseum in every available noticeboard and forum. The fact of the matter is, they have both presented their cases, and rational people can choose which side to support and which to oppose based on the evidence they choose to accept or reject. In my opinion, AndyTheGrump's comments could be construed as offensive to Bus stop. At the same time, Bus stop's tagging could be interpreted as annoying by AndyTheGrump. At the end of the day, both editors have different interpretations and approaches, and they must learn to respect each other, and more importantly, consensus. I would like to see this thread closed with no sanctions on either party. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could this be construed as a personal attack on me? "AndyTheGrump" says "Bus stop is simply an obsessive Jew-tagger and should be ignored accordingly." Edit summary: " response to Bus stop's usual attempt to turn Misplaced Pages into 'The pop-up book of famous Jews" Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It could, if there were not a fair slice of truth in there. You do act like you have an obsession with adding ethnic categories to articles on people, regardless of policy and regardless of what the people themselves say. It would be better for everybody whose time is currently being wasted, and for you, if you were prevented from doing this. --John (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You could interpret it that way, yes. But you could also take it as face value and laugh it off. My own personal opinion is that AndyTheGrump did not intend to use the word "Jew" in an insulting way. It's problematic, of course, because without the right context, someone could misinterpret it as antisemitic, which I don't think it is. You could argue that it is insulting. In any case, I've been following this specific debate for years, and I don't think Andy meant to attack Jews as a religion or an ethnic group, but he did intend to attack you for tagging biographical articles. And of course, we know the community has a problem with enforcing PA's, so you're back at square one again. Unlike others, I don't think you should be prevented from doing this, because I've followed the discussion over the last four years, and on many occasions you've shown that you have reliable sources for your tagging. So the problem isn't your selective tagging of articles, it's the policies and guidelines of how to categorize BLP's. But, I am curious about John's comments above. John, do you believe that editors who have what you call "obsessions" on Misplaced Pages, should be prevented from acting on those obsessions by the community? Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Highlighting part of your comment with yellow is really annoying. It gives the comments of one editor extra weight. Sort of like SHOUTING IN BOLD CAPS, When adding emphasis, in my opinion bold, italic, and bold italic suffice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem that compounds the language problem ("Jew-tagging") is the offbeat understanding of Jews. "AndyTheGrump" says: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?" Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, nice try Bus Stop, but anyone reading the diff will see that you have cherry-picked an irony-laden phrase out of context - one where I point out that according to the Halachic law you so frequently invoke, Adam Levine may well not be Jewish - and I go on to write that my opinion (in accord with Misplaced Pages policy) "If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Misplaced Pages Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—there is no "irony" in your statement: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?" This is not an ironic statement. You argue for a bright line of distinction between observant Jews and nonobservant Jews. It simply doesn't exist. But I never ask you to take my word for that. I show you sources. You can see that in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • But, this isn't the place to continue the argument now, is it? Best to let this one go. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have my doubts about no sanctions, Viriditas, because I cannot believe that either Alansohn or Bus stop are in good faith in their arguments in this thread. Alansohn claims that Jew-tagging is "offensive on a religious basis" and evidence of an "anti-Semitic rampage" deserving "an extremely lengthy block of several months to years"; Bus stop claims that Andy's "word constructions involving the word "Jew"" are incomprehensible and shouldn't be used on Misplaced Pages because they're not used "by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources". Do I really need to point out that Andy's not using those words in an article? He uses them in, and in order to refer to, "our unique working methods", that is to say to refer to to the wikipedia practice of "tagging". Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by Jew-tagging? Suppose he had been talking about civility-tagging or NPOV-tagging, in an internal wikipedia discussion (again, of course nobody should use them in mainspace), would that also be inappropriate because those terms are not used beyond the borders of Misplaced Pages?

I agree that Alansohn deserves a block for his unconscionable accusation of antisemitism, and so I support Andy's call for a block. That's a personal attack if there ever was one. Alansohn made it here, and after Tarc had tried to explain what was wrong with his argument, he reiterated it here, in if possible even more IDIDNTHEARTHAT terms. And a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen—are you deliberately misconstruing what I said in this post? I did not imply anything was "incomprehensible". You say "Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by 'Jew-tagging'?" I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. I find problematic the off-the-cuff, flippant, invention of compound terms incorporating the term "Jew". Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she's saying that you said you didn't understand, she's saying that you've demonstrated that you don't understand. Seems straightforward. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. As a general observation, this guideline says it's fine to have a category like "Jewish musicians" based on ethnicity rather than religion. And putting someone in that category doesn't amount to being a "Jew tagging troll" which is an obvious and very disparaging allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. This is not a religious categorization, so I don't see why it would require treatment by editors exactly as a religious categorization.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Misplaced Pages ought to get rid of all ethnic categories. I don't know. But people working within the existing categorization system ought not be constantly compared to Nazis, either explicitly or implicitly. Such comparison rightly offended User:Alansohn even if he expressed himself poorly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now you are accusing me of comparing Bus Stop to a Nazi? Based on nothing but your fertile imagination. Talk about clutching at straws. Or tilting at Windmills. Or whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When I say "Jew tagging troll" it's an obvious allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. When you say it, it may be intended as a wonderful compliment, who knows? How about just not using language that others will construe as a personal attack? You might get more accomplished that way. I know what kind of foul language you're unapologetically capable of, Andy, so don't try this Miss Innocence routine on me. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your fertile (if somewhat jaundiced) imagination is of little relevance to this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's for others to decide, and they may well err as you have (serially).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the terminology of "tagging Jews" brings to mind the "tagging of Jews" by the Yellow stars. I do not find the reference at all farfetched. I failed to mention it but this reference seemed obvious to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If that analogy holds (it doesn't--it's ridiculous, and a variety of Godwin's law), then Andy would be calling you the Jew-tagger, that is the Nazi, which would make it even more unlikely that Andy would be antisemitic. Remember, you're the one adding categories--that is, tagging. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I went to Bus stop's user talk recently and patiently described the pertinent policy and guideline about religious and ethnic categorization. And he subsequently announced that he is not supporting "Religion:Jewish" in the Belfort infobox (which is what the fuss at BLPN was about). In fact, Bus stop is not the one who put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox (that was Bbb23 who later acknowledged that it shouldn't go there even though Belfort is ethnically Jewish). I don't doubt that Bus stop has been a pain in the neck in the past, but I honestly don't think anyone ever referred him to the pertinent guideline, as I did recently at his talk page. There are no diffs of any recent bad article edits by Bus stop, AFAIK. And it's gratifying that Grump has acknowledged that he shouldn't have attacked Bus stop in the way he did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of this thread until making the mistake a few minutes ago of looking at Misplaced Pages before I went to bed, so I thought I'd delay that and come take my lumps. It was my error to restore Jewish to the religion field in the infobox. I didn't put it in there in the first instance, but I did put it back. I compounded my error by then complaining about it being removed at BLPN. As Anythingyouwant says, I later acknowledged my error, with the help of a few good editors, in particular one, but I did kind of start the mess. To explain, not excuse, my error, I was conflating Jewish cats with the infobox. We often apply BLPCAT to labels in the infobox, and with some religious labels, i.e., Catholic, you can no more say religion=Catholic than you can say cat=Catholic actor unless the conditions of BLPCAT are met (self-identification mainly). But that doesn't work for the Jewish descriptor because of the issue of religion vs. culture (what others call ethnicity). So, my addled brain was thinking that because you could rightfully say cat=American Jews because of the ambiguity, you could also rightfully put it in the infobox. It was simply a stupid lapse on my part. Ironically, when I used to hang out a lot at BLPN, I was always fighting the categorization of BLPs as Jews. I will now vote on the Bus stop topic ban and go to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish". The issue is contentious and requires much more nuance that Bus stop seems capable of. In any particular case, it may be justified to interpret sources to assert someone's Jewishness, but the discussion at WP:BLPN#Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT indicates that anything plausible will be used by Bus stop to justify a tag, including "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". The term "X is Jewish" becomes meaningless if it might refer to X's mother, or upbringing, or beliefs, or current religious observance, or cultural affiliation. By contrast WP:BLPCAT asserts "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello? I just explained that current guidelines treat being "Jewish" as an ethnic category, and not just a religious category. If you think it ought to be just a religious category, then change the guideline I just linked to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone is arguing for including "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox, it would seem safe to assume that they are applying a religious categorisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you would kindly reread the last comment by User:Johnuniq, he is arguing against the idea that "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". That argument seems to contradict Misplaced Pages guidelines such as this one. Uniq did not mention infoboxes, I did not mention infoboxes, and infoboxes have nothing to do with whether the statement "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews" is a correct statement. Anyway, I have things to do, and would prefer not to get into a week-long pie-throwing contest debate about this like you (Andy) conducted at BLPN. So, I'm out of here (at least assuming that no one proposes sanctions against me now). Have a nice January.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I seem to be the only person here who sees Andy's term "Jew-tagging" as an analog to "Jew-baiting", a reference to a mode of behavior seen as insensitive and often unsavory, but not necessarily full-throatedly antisemitic. I see no reason to conclude the term is either a reference to Nazis or itself a manifestation of antisemitism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're the only one. Clearly Andy has found a polemic shortcut for "categorizing as Jewish by either faith or ethnicity". Bus stop may call that antisemitic but we know why they would; why Alansohn would call it that I don't know, though I'll AGF and just blame it on poor grammar education. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The language we are discussing is unnecessary. The language we are discussing is wholly gratuitous. We don't have to find such language antisemitic to find it unacceptable. Our level of discourse should be based upon the best that is out there. We shouldn't be looking inward. All of the good quality journalistic outlets tend to follow carefully scripted language practices. They adjust their language usage as terms come into and go out of vogue. If a Google News search finds zero usage for a term, it is a good bet that we shouldn't be using it either. This of course applies in article space, but it is a good idea to endeavor to keep Talk page spaces in conformance with the best quality language usage available. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The behavior we are discussing is unnecessary. The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The best quality language usage available would not include the terminology "Jew-tagging". Again: we don't have to find it antisemitic to find it unacceptable. The historical use of the Yellow badge is a form of "Jew-tagging", is it not? Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop. Although I don't necessarily condone AndyTheGrump's overly-expressive language here and at the related BLPN discussion, I certainly understand (and empathize with) his frustration. I stopped commenting at any BLPN discussion regarding Jewish categories involving Bus Stop a very long time ago as the experience was too painful. I'm sure I'm not the only one who became worn down by the IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses and endless repetition of the same arguments. I'm grateful that Andy has shown more fortitude than me and I don't support any sanctions against him at this time regarding this issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo 00:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• For <insert deity's name>'s sake, "Jew-tagging", "bear-tagging" ... it's not offensive whatsoever. It's random or systemic tagging for classification or tracking purposes - exactly what Bus stop should be banned form doing ES&L 01:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Bus stop

Reading through the above thread, the only sanction that I can see emerging as at all widely supported is a topic ban for Bus stop. The following ten users have proposed it in different terms:

1. Dougweller: "I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags."
2. AndyTheGrump: "an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy"
3. Ultraexactzz: "I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area."
4. Drmies:"I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal."
5. John: "I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many."
6. Guy Macon: "Give an indefinite topic ban with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas"
7. RolandR: "I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Misplaced Pages's BLP policy."
8. Bishonen: "a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me."
9. Johnuniq: "Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish".
10. Ponyo: "Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop"

• I'll try to summarize the options:

Option 1: Bus stop is topic banned from adding ethnic or religious categories to BLPs.
Option 2: Bus stop is topic banned from adding any categories to BLPs.
Option 3: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to Jewish identities and living persons.
Option 4: Bus stop is topic banned from all BLPs and their talkpages.

Note Jan 31: An option 5, "Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism", was added to this list on Jan 29, removed the same day, readded Jan 30, and again removed.. Some people have referred to option 5 in the discussion below, but it's probably safest to assume people that don't mention it weren't aware of it. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC).

If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal; it seems a little byzantine. Please discuss below, and if you support a ban, please indicate which option(s) and also for how long. I'll start the ball rolling:

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. (My reservation w r t Option 1 is that I can see it leading to endless argument about which categories qualify as ethnic or religious and which don't.) Bishonen | talk 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Bishonen–there have been no diffs brought. I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." I would be opposed to a Kangaroo court style of justice. Please bring diffs. Also please respond to this. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They know they don't need evidence for a topic ban. Hell, most editors are blocked with little to no evidence. You seem to forget how this place works. The irony, of course, is that the evidence presented in this thread by your detractors exonerates you, demonstrating that the conflict over categorizing Jews exists independently of your participation. In fact, the evidence presented against you has little to nothing to do with your contributions. To conclude, the rationale for this topic ban is a fraud. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting the way the process operates. When asked for evidence in the form of "diffs", those who support sanctions against me turn a deaf ear. Obviously few "diffs" are available and not enough of good enough quality to justify sanctions. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. Bus Stop's extreme tendentiousness in the above thread engenders empathy for AndyTheGrump, as does the unseriousness of AndyTheGrump's detractors — goethean 00:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support each and every -- I first ran into him at Judaism so the problem is not only BLPs, but it is sure where the most heat has been generated. I dislike draconian solutions, but this one has been long in coming. Collect (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all options, with preference given to the most severe restriction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Bus stop is passionate, and he courageously speaks his mind. Tedious at times; perhaps unrelenting at times; but he doesn't back down and he never - never attacks other editors. To each his/her own and some sensitivity is called for...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2-4 as above. Israel/Palestine, Judaism, and related topic areas are a nasty, hostile area to edit in, which is why I have largely abandoned it. Any action that pries a tendentious editor out of the morass can only be a net positive. Andy's rhetoric is sub-optimal, but asking anyone to turn a cheek to what Bus Stop has been upto for years is simply too much to expect from anyone. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support All, but especially options 3 and four 5. His mode of discussion of the categories is far more problematic than his adding of them. He is either incapable of understanding plain English or pretends to be. In either case he can't or won't discuss these issues constructively. Tedious+unrelenting=tendentious. (edit) Supporting 5 rather than 4; not 4 per AndyTheGrump, yes 5 per my experiences with him over the years in Palestine/Israeli matters, which parallel his tendentious editing in BLP as discussed and displayed on the present occasion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe Bus Stop may well have been brought around to seeing the error of his ways if he had been spoken to with a minimal amount of politeness, instead of with the ridicule, contempt, incivility, personal attacks, and disparagement that were richly on display in the BLPN thread. That is still possible, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought "diffs" were important. Can those "supporting" bring a collection of recent "diffs" for my supposedly problematic input? I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a question for you, Bishonen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a question for Bishonen. Bishonen was also asked a question here. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Those instructions are intended for the context of initial reporting of a problem. When an editors own contributions within the ANI thread clearly indicate the basis of the ban proposal diffs would be a bureaucratic redundancy.NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NE Ent—it is not "bureaucratic redundancy"; it is an absence of evidence. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support--I'll have 2 and 3 please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 3, indefinitely. I suspect that 1 or 2 might well be seen by Bus Stop as a license to continue the same pattern of talk-page tendentiousness. I can't in good faith support 4, given that I've not really seen sufficient evidence of his behavioural problems extending beyond issues around 'Jewishness' to convince me it is really necessary, and I get the impression that some of the art-related work he has done has been beneficial to the project - editing subjects where he feels less personal involvement might just possibly bring around a change of heart, even at this late stage. If his behaviour (which is likely to remain under close scrutiny) does then prove problematic beyond the matters discussed here, we will of course have the option of imposing further topic bans etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support any or all. Seven years of tendentious and disruptive editing in this area is probably a long enough period to draw conclusions about a pattern of conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2. Would not outright ban him on talk pages of those pages covered in #2, but a stern caution is if Bus Stop can't drop the stick when clearly the rest of the discussion has moved on, that's grounds for blocking as well. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all per ToAT. NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all topic ban proposals. Ironically, the evidence listed in this discussion allegedly showing that Bus stop has been "tendentious" and causing conflict actually shows the complete opposite and exonerates him. In the three primary examples listed in this thread, namely Adam Levine, Ed Miliband, and Jordan Belfort, Bus stop was correct in alleging that these people self-identify as Jews. This has angered several editors who have been trying very hard to remove this self-identification from these and other articles. This current conflict results from a dispute at Jordan Belfort, a dispute that has nothing to do with Bus stop. While it is true that Bus stop has had problems in the past, he has stayed out of trouble since 2011. If one looks closely at the evidence in this thread being used against him as a justification for a topic ban, one is forced to conclude that Bus stop is innocent and that this discussion is another example of Misplaced Pages groupthink at work. Certain editors on one side of this dispute are attempting to silence Bus stop, who has been calm and civil while dealing with a barrage of personal attacks on the noticeboards. A topic ban would reward those who would seek to impose sanctions on their ideological rivals and punish those who remain steadfast and strong in the face of such intimidation. I believe he was wrong to accuse others of antisemitism, but his error is understandable considering the confusing verbiage. I don't, however, believe this mistake should result in a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. Anyone voting for sanctions against me should read this Jordan Belfort thread on the BLP/N. I didn't initiate it. I didn't even argue for "Religion: Jewish" in the Belfort Infobox. I support our policy on WP:BLPCAT. I understand it and I support it. But I nevertheless reserve the right to respond to comments that I think are misguided—either innocently or by caprice. The discussion went on, but I wasn't the only driving force behind its perpetuation. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop certainly did not put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox (unlike other editors), and he is not arguing for "Religion:Jewish" in the Belfort infobox, and he is about to be topic-banned because of....the Belfort infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Viriditas and Anythingyouwant's reasoning above which are both very well put. I may not agree with all of Bus stop's tactics but I have seen over the years a pattern of backing him into a corner and then bringing him to these sorts of noticeboards. It's despicable, frankly. freshacconci talk to me 02:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, freshacconci. This is a game that "AndyTheGrump" plays. In his very first post in the Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT thread he/she says "And there is no way whatsoever that Misplaced Pages is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid." Why is he referring to defining religion "on the basis that their mother was Jewish"? This has nothing to do with the preceding conversation. Certainly nothing said by me. And is it "just plain stupid"? Orthodox Judaism maintains that it is the mother that determines whether the child is Jewish. Is this "just plain stupid"? "AndyTheGrump" starts off abrasively. Is this the way Misplaced Pages should conduct itself? I started this AN/I thread to address a problem. It is difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose input is so abrasive. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The process is interesting. Due to the peculiarities of WP:Boomerang one can't address problems such as abusive editors such as "AndyTheGrump" without having sanctions brought on oneself. The process is such that "AndyTheGrump" is free to heap abuse on others without any possibility of repercussion. Bus stop (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any/all. The intersections of culture/ethnicity/religion wrt judaism/jewishness is a complex area and needs to be approached carefully. Someone who is so determined to force through his own interpretations needs to be removed from the topic area. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support whichever option casts the widest net. Epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3. I have not done the research to justify supporting 4. Tagging ethnicity/culture/religion may be fine if conducted by an organization with a formal structure where the meaning of the tags can at least be guessed, and where consistency can be assumed, but it is problematic here where people can argue (against the WP:BLPCAT policy) that "X is Jewish" is justified by tradition or descent or culture or religious observance, while others believe that such thinking is from the 1950s—when a reader sees "X is Jewish" are they supposed to think "Oh! That explains it!"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 5: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism.

• Note: all the !votes above this comment were posted before option 5 was added. This means that supporting my suggested topic ban was not an option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Alansohn's comment in the discussion up above. Bus stop has been adding categories based on sources, and Andy's been removing them with his characteristic level of civility. Sanctions should be placed for removing information based on sources, not for adding it. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alansohn 110% that the "Use of the word 'Jew' in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis". All arguments to the contrary should be rejected summarily. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support options 2 or 3 per my comment in the preceding section.--Jezebel'sPonyo 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bus Stop has only acknowledged a problem, that he found as either ethnic slur or racial slur. It is offensive, "Jew tagging" has only 200-230 results, on Google. Making it no official, but made up insult. Kindly check both's block history. Who is less disruptive. Banning is certainly not a solution for Bus Stop. Noteswork (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five ban options. --John (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, what is Bus stop doing wrong here? Does the Who is a Jew? argument make it semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish? I did not see any evidence of improper behavior by Bus stop, while Andy's outright rudeness is evident even in the discussion above. Shii (tock) 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five sanctions, having read through the frankly depressing thread above. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Andy has done, and that discussion belongs in a separate thread; it's clear that Bus stop is completely unable to edit productively in this area, and has no grasp of BLPCAT or WP:RS. Several editors here are clearly letting their dislike of Andy take precedence over what is happening (Alansohn and Anythingyouwant being two obvious examples; Alansohn not even bothering to read what Andy actually wrote properly at pretty much any point in the thread). Noteswork's oppose vote borders on the ridiculous (of course it won't come up on Google, considering that it's a direct reference to a Misplaced Pages process!) If you want to propose some sanction for Andy, open up a separate sub-thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Outright bullying is what I see, and loads of apologetics for incivility. It is not OK to call editors Jew-tagging trolls. I see masses of Palestinian Arab-troll tagging, with people adding that identification to articles when it is so false and without sourcing as to be ridiculous. Nobody has put a name on it yet. Thank you Grump for giving it a name.--Silmiyyah (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all bans. Bus stop has continued to edit against consensus and to have entered into numerous disputes with other editors. Obviously they cannot edit in a collegial manner. TFD (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD, nowhere in this discussion is there any evidence of Bus stop editing against consensus. Nowhere. And there is no evidence of any incivility either. Perhaps you are responding to the wrong discussion? It is AndyTheGrump who is accused of editing in a less than collegial manner, not Bus stop. And as for consensus on the matter at hand, Bus stop did not act against consensus in the matter of Jordan Belfort, which is where this latest dispute originated from in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans. The verbiage being complained about is only offensive for the use of troll, but I think Andy had reason to use that term. "Jew" is not offensive. I asked about this on the Judaism project some time ago when I was concerned over its use in articles. Andy told the editor to go to ANI if they wanted to complain. That IS NOT BAITING! I tell people that all the time when I am finished discussing their complaint of something they didn't like. It gives them the information they need to make a formal complaint. It is not baiting and is not actionable. I am concerned that Andy may have overreacted, but if someone is tagging articles to just proclaim the subject is Jewish...it is as wrong as labeling someone as gay if they do not self identify as such. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, this ANI report does not involve Bus stop tagging anyone, and in the three articles listed as "problematic" in this thread by Andy, all three subjects self-identified as Jewish. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand that Viriditas, but the complaint regarded someone being called a "A Jew tagging troll". Like many editors, they may well have tagged some correctly, but if the issue is someone who is out of control and obsessed to a point that all they seem to do, or the majority of their work is to tag subjects as Jewish...that just seems like a red flag for a temp topic ban regardless of that editor opening a complaint against another.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • After reading your post and looking a tad further I think it best to forget all bans for the moment and refocus on the content issues. Andy may have over reacted to an editor that he felt was too gungho but seems to have done little wrong aside from complaining about a non issue. A thicker skin is needed to edit Misplaced Pages. No reason to ban the editor for just being correct and another not liking that fact. I have altered my !vote.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support' 3; open-minded about all others. It is necessary to put a stop to this constant tagging, and the interminable talk page discussions. And let's please dispose of the red herring here: Neither Andy not anyone else is proposing removing any mention that Belfort is, or identifies as, Jewish. What is at issue here, and in many of the previous arguments, is Bus Stop's insistence that if, under Jewish religious law, a person is considered Jewish, then this is sufficient evidence to insist that their religion be listed as Jewish, regardless of their own statements. RolandR (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - A number of !votes here seem to be based on misconceptions. A key issue seems to be that Bus stop advocates the view that RS based information that supports ethnicity=X for an individual can be transformed into religion=X (or some variation such as nonobservant), in an infobox for example. He claims this transformation is valid and consistent with the decision procedure described by WP:BLPCAT under certain conditions, when X=Jewish (and perhaps for other ethnoreligious groups although I haven't seen evidence of that). This view is inconsistent with BLPCAT, which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ...in question, and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources...These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Misplaced Pages page) that are based on religious beliefs..." A number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided. This is not about removal of information based on self-identification. It's not about anyone adding categories based on sources, and someone else removing them. It's not about it being "semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish". It's about the addition or advocacy for the addition of information about religion/religious beliefs without self-identification and sourcing that supports that information. The editors who have !voted based on misconceptions should go back and review the discussion, the examples and amend their statements accordingly. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean, that's not true. You wrote that "a number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided". The examples that have been provided are of Jordan Belfort (self-identifies as a Jew), Ed Miliband (self-identifies as a Jew), and Adam Levine (self-identifies as a Jew). There is no "advocacy" by Bus stop here. Quite the opposite, actually. Ironically, in all three instances above, we have editors obsessively arguing for days on end that even when these people self-identify as Jews they still cannot be categorized as Jews. So no matter how much one adheres to BLPCAT, someone will try and dispute it based on what it means to be Jewish. The problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with Bus stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Look more closely e.g. Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Planned_WP:BOLD_edit (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010) or Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Ethnicity_in_infobox (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011'). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you do need to look more closely. In the 2010 discussion you linked to above, we see Bus stop making calm, rational arguments, with consensus against him, although it must be said, there were a wide range of opinions. Then we see AndytheGrump editing against consensus, and even admitting it in the discussion at 17:17, 7 December 2010. AndytheGrump does the same thing in the next discussion from May 2011 where he edits against consensus established on the talk page and even starts attacking Bus stop. If your links were intended to chastise Bus stop and exonerate AndytheGrump, then I'm afraid you didn't look at them. Based on those two discussions you linked, if you are going to topic ban Bus stop, then you must also topic ban AndytheGrump for engaging in the exact same tendentious behavior. Keep in mind, of course, that these two have been at it for four years or more. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The links were intended to demonstrate Bus stop advocating the transformation I described. Nothing more, nothing less. There are many examples in those threads (and others). e.g.

• His religion doesn't switch from being Jewish to being "no religion" or "None" as a consequence of his being nonobservant.
• The article happens to say that "Miliband is Jewish, but not religious." I am suggesting that in the Infobox it read: "Religious identity: Jewish
• Jews are commonly understood to be under the umbrella of Judaism whether they are observant of that religion or not. This is different than Christianity—Jewish identity depends on birth or conversion. Miliband's status did not change from having a religion to not having a religion as a consequence of failing to observe Jewish ritual. (Judaism functions differently than Christianity in this regard.).

Bus stop has advocated this ethnicity->religion transformation many times over the years. This is common knowledge. Links to articles that contain evidence of his advocacy have been provided on many occasions, including here. The claims by several editors that evidence has not been provided are false. Several opinions have been provided based on false premises. What action should the community take to deal with Bus stop's advocacy ? I don't care or else I would have !voted. How should the community deal with Andy's colorful language ? I really couldn't give a shit. The world will keep turning what ever happens, but the information in the discussion should at least be accurate, the !votes should be based the actual state of affairs so that the outcome is valid and consistent with the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Supposing there is antisemitism—can it be spoken of? Or are any and all intimations of antisemitism beyond the realm of discussion? Supposing I think that "Jew-tagging" has a 99% possibility of being interpreted as being antisemitic and only a 1% likelihood of being read as not antisemitic? Am I allowed to say that? Why can't we talk about antisemitism? Are all Misplaced Pages editors non-antisemitic? That would be unlikely—wouldn't it? And wouldn't any editor that harbored a dislike of Jews try to skirt the line of blatant versus hidden expression of such dislike of Jews? Sure—we are to give "AndyTheGrump" the benefit of the doubt concerning the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging". That is proper protocol. But an objection is being lodged here. I have filed an objection to the use of language that I find indefensible. What is the defense of this language ("Jew-tagging")? It's not serving a purpose and it should be stopped. My own misgivings about my filing of this complaint is that I am opposed to the censorship aspects of what I'm advocating in calling for the cessation of the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging". But that doesn't mean that we as a community cannot reach a rough agreement that the use of that phrase should be pared back. I'm bothered by those who say they see no problem in the phrase, as if that alleviates the problem. If anything the expression of such sentiments, in the absence of a call for reducing the use of the phrase, exacerbates the problem. The problem is the phrase "Jew-tagging". To me it is unacceptable. Your mileage may vary, but I find that language to be abrasive, coarse, hostile, and an impediment to the discourse that has to take place on a Talk page. It is at the very least "name-calling". ("Bus stop is simply an obsessive Jew-tagger and should be ignored accordingly.") We should keep the use of the phrase "Jew-tagging" to a minimum. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If those difficult questions are addressed to me you have probably picked the wrong person. I don't really care about civility on Misplaced Pages. It matters to me in the real world but here incivility just seems like a distraction from dealing with the content issues. Editing in the very hostile WP:ARBPIA topic area for years builds immunity or word blindness. I've seen so much incivility here, orders of magnitude more than I've encountered in my entire life in the real world. Look at the log file of my talk page. Those are all truely appalling (but amusingly off target) attacks with some novelty threats of violence thrown in. I don't mind. It's just people losing their tempers, lashing out etc. I think the policy should be scrapped. Reasonable people (not the lunatics in the log) sometimes say things they probably shouldn't say. C'est la vie. Why worry about it ? We're here to build an encyclopedia. Andy's a reasonable guy. So are you. Why not just ask him not to use that phrase again ? He might want something in return though. For interest, I don't find the term "Jew-tagging" unacceptable but then I don't really find any words unacceptable. I don't really know how to measure that here anymore. If it's unacceptable to you, I guess it's unacceptable that someone would say it to you. But language like that used in anger or frustration doesn't happen in a vacuum. There's a trajectory with causes and effects on it. So for me it's not just about focusing on particular points on that path, particular phrases. That isn't enough. My comments have focused on your role, which is only part of the issue, but that is because I don't care about incivility here, partly I have to say, because it's a problem that doesn't seem to have a solution, so I don't concern myself with it. Plenty of other people do. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You say "incivility just seems like a distraction from dealing with the content issues". That is exactly what I am saying. I am simply arguing for standard English in accordance with language and terminology used by good quality on-topic sources. Let me be clear that I am not really "offended" by the phrase. It's not like I start pulling out my hair and bouncing off the ceiling. My objection to the use of that phrase is that it puts an impediment to productive communication in place. It is a phrase that shifts the discussion into a zone of pettiness and unproductiveness. It is just an obstacle to addressing whatever issue is actually at hand. My concern goes beyond merely the phrase "Jew-tagging". My objection is to coarse speech. I don't want to be told to "put up, or shut up". When I express objection to this, the User just repeats it: "I do. I just did. And I'll do so again. Put up, or shut up". I reserve the right to use a Talk page for its primary purpose. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up" isn't especially uncivil. It just means "Get on with it". John Major famously used it in 1995, for example. It isn't spectacularly polite, but it falls a very long way from being actionable according to our norms. --John (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John. "Put up or shut up" is very mild. Forbidden stuff would be more like "Bus stop is a Jew-tagging bigot.” Bus stop is “a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD”. Bus stop is “someone who wishes for Misplaced Pages to publish lies.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—in this thread you have said to "AndyTheGrump": "So, you haven't made any policy violating edits based on a conflation of ethnicity and religious beliefs or a misuse of reliably sourced information about one aspect of a person's identity, ethnicity, to draw policy violating conclusions about another aspect of their identity, religion. Thought not." Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And, Sean.hoyland, in that thread you have said to ""AndyTheGrump": "Come on Andy. Surely it's trivial for you to dig up a diff that demonstrates one of the many occasions you have treated Christians as an ethnoreligious group where the ambiguity of the statement "I'm a Christian" by a living person confused you to the extent that you were unsure which aspect of their identity they were referring to, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, but because you know what it means to be Christian, even in a ethnic sense, you went ahead with Ethnicity=Christian in the infobox anyway." Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Was there a question ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose -- I agree strongly with Viriditas, and urge the person who will close this to read his post carefully. In addition: this issue emerges in part from Andy's conniptions, which might lead some to suggest with me that if this issue causes Andy angst then perhaps his focus is best placed elsewhere. Bus-stop is persistent (one might say dogged), but he is civil. If others disagree with him, fine, but I don't see disruption here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to give him that. He is really Civil. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do Misplaced Pages's rules allow an editor to advocate their model of X (identity in this case) and/or apply that model to articles about living people without evidence that complies with WP:BLPCAT ? When does that kind of behavior cross the fuzzy line into disruption ? It seems to me that the degree of civility isn't relevant to these questions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Sean; in this case civility is crucial and indicative of character - especially as these long drawn out discussions become heated. Bus stop is an important - if dissenting voice - to many of the articles that he contributes to. While others often disagree with him, and while his opinions are unpopular regarding certain BLP subjects his voice should not be silenced...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicely explained by Modernist. Indeed, Bus stop has been less disruptive for last 3 years. We know there are editors who commit higher amount of offense. If he is amusing WP:Goodfaith and has suggestion based on references. He can be accepted, not certainly opposed. Noteswork (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that many people hold that view of civility here. One of the consequences is that editors who want to engineer content to match their model of the world are best served by employing civility to achieve their objectives. Civility is a valuable tool under these circumstances and performs better than incivility, but both are just surface features. The objectives remain the same and are independent of the presentation style. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree Sean that civility certainly helps putting forward your objectives and points of view regarding the world - and how you present material in articles - however the predominant criteria still rests on reliable sources and writing quality. I should add - Bus stop often backs his input with reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

He does indeed often find sources, that's true. He is not a bad person. I could say many good things about his editing but I hate to dwell on the positive. Unfortunately he has a hobby horse and it's his horse that causes problems. Given that he's a painter, and given that so very many articles about artists are in a bad state or don't exist, I just wish that he would spend his time more constructively, like you, rather than wasting it trying to convince people that it's okay to make decisions about someone's beliefs and putting that in an encyclopedia without their input. It's just wrong and pointless. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This whole thing is ridiculous. Andy started throwing around slurs, and when he was called on it, the primary victim of those slurs was attacked. Viriditas and Nomoskedasticity and the rest are 100% correct, and the usual religion-hating crowd should be slapped with a trout. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Religion-hating crowd? Citation needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As I explained in the section above this one, I think this is not the right forum to come to this conclusion. WP:RFC/USER is where I think this should go, and I think the intention should be guiding Bus stop rather than blocking him. His contributions over the years have been valuable, and his behavior normative. A user like that deserves the effort a RFC/USER who provide for giving guidance. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposed measures against "Bus stop" because this thread presents no evidence of disruptive behavior or even links to prior discussions of such. So it surely looks like a Misplaced Pages:POV railroad to a hitherto uninvolved observer/editor. If this has been going on for years as claimed, surely a RfC/U can be filed with some evidence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Support civility wp:trout to AndyTheGrump though; that problem has been documented above well enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• On a procedural note I'd like to mention that User:Bishonen who created this section should have listed not only those in favor of a topic ban, but those opposed as well. As is, he creates an unfair impression. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, they shouldn't have, and to suggest that is daft. There was, at that point, a consensus emerging that some kind of action was needed, so Bishonen opened the thread, citing the views of those who viewed that this particular course of action is necessary. Now, there is probably no consensus either way (it looks roughly 50-50), so wikilawyer-esque comments like that really aren't needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I make it 20:14, and we can probably strike out some of the 14 as being people with various anti-Andy agendas. Not sure if we can call this consensus yet, but it isn't 50-50 by any means. --John (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has an anti- bus-stop agenda?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You'r obfuscating the issue, as it is an advocacy agenda being pursued by the editor under discussion that is at issue in this thread.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean Andy's advocacy of the notion that Bus stop is a "Jew-tagging bigot"? Bus stop has disclaimed any intent to put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox, he is not the editor who put it there in the first place, and he has explicitly accepted BLPCAT.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And how would an "anti-Andy" !vote be determined? I only know him in passing, so I take exception to the bad-faith suggestion that some of the oppose !votes are merely anti-Andy. I am personally troubled that using a slur like "Jew-tagging trolls", regardless of supposed context, is merely brushed aside and the victim of the slur is then attacked. It's pretty shocking and points to some systemic issues on Misplaced Pages. And for such a draconian measure -- up to 5 possible choices that could lead to various bannings -- to be determined by a simple 50%+1 vote is equally troubling. I always thought that Misplaced Pages was not a democracy and it was a matter of argument and not numbers of votes, thus the !vote designation. freshacconci talk to me 19:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really, Debresser? I should have listed User:Viriditas? I couldn't find anybody else besides him explicitly opposing such a ban in the thread above. If you can, I hope you'll list them here. Actually, it seems natural to me that with the one exception, the people likely to be against a ban didn't say so in so many words, in the kind of discussion taking place above — not even you, Debresser, not even Bus stop as far as I can see. That was one of the reasons I created this section, for more focused attention to the question of a ban, so that those against might post explicit opposes, so that consensus about a ban might be sought. (I also assumed that Viriditas would post in this section, as indeed he has. Do you feel ignored by the way I opened this section, Viriditas?)

By the way, I have my own procedural note: Somebody has removed option 5 above, which was added by Guy Macon here. Excuse me for bolding, but that one I think is important. Guy put a note about his option here; that's still there on the page. I can't where the removal happened in the history, ANI history being what it is, but it wasn't Guy. Several people have addressed option 5. It seems destructive to silently remove it. Please, at a minimum, add a signed note about why. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

It was removed in this edit.--Jezebel'sPonyo 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ponyo. I have written to NE Ent about it. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

• Oppose Not only isn't this the proper forum, but there is no evidence provided here of an issue with Bus stop, though there is ample evidence of User:AndyTheGrump using thinly veiled racist language. I'm sure that there are other examples of compound / hyphenated terms using the word "Jew", but "Jew-lover", "Jew-hater" and "Jew-baiting" come to mind. None of these use the word "Jew" in a vaguely neutral connotation, and the provocative nature of the term AndyTheGrump has manufactured is unmistakable. Imagine if Bus stop had been categorizing articles for people as LGBT or African American based on reliable sources, and substitute for "Jew" the equivalent offensive slur for sexual preference / race in the term "Jew-tagging" that AndyTheGrump has used repeatedly without compunction. If wanting to stand up to AndyTheGrump for his persistent use of thinly disguised racist rhetoric marks me as having an "anti-Andy agenda", then so be it. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Alansohn to be allowed to continue to make these vile and entirely unfounded personal attacks on my integrity without sanction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Applying buckets of AGF, it cannot be the case that Alansohn is attacking Andy with ridiculous claims that have been rejected by a significant number of editors who have cared to comment on the side issue, therefore, Alansohn fails WP:CIR and should be restricted from offering opinions on other editors, particularly Andy. There is ample evidence that Alansohn has zero understanding of the issues in this case, and it is particularly offensive to pull the "racist" card in an attempt to knock out Andy who has simply been trying to get Bus stop to engage in a discussion about what WP:BLPCAT means. Bus stop has chosen the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response, nicely coupled with WP:CPUSH to push-push-push a point of view contrary to policy. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Options #2 and #3. BMK (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Now that I've read the mysteriously removed Option 5: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism., I support it as well. BMK (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal. I propose that this disgusting thread be closed as inappropriate and that AndyTheGrump be requested to offer a real apology for using an inappropriate term in a collaborative and collegial setting. In academia, and I'm certain in other Real World settings, Andy's language would have not been tolerated, and he would have been sanctioned in some fashion in an academic institution. Bus stop's "crime" (i.e. annoying some people) would have earned a stern warning at best. I say close this now and we all move on. (I'll be holding my breath over here). freshacconci talk to me 19:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I say you don't have a leg to stand on, given the actual evidence and opinions offered by many many people above, but I'll not be holding my breath for you to notice, either. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support #3, at minimum. Plenty of evidence in this very thread for such a measure -- and Bus stop's attempts at FUD notwithstanding, the links are here to easily go and check his behavior on the various Talk/Noticeboard pages. And while we're at it, 1) an official warning (at minimum) or block for User:Alansohn's reprehensible attempt at stifling commentary by invoking anti-semiticism; 2) User:Anythingyouwant, that axe you have is nice and shiny, but maybe you should go grind it somewhere else. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all per Shii, Nyttend and Someone not using his real name in the discussion above.Tristan noir (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support #5 ("Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism") preferred, but any of the options will help. I understand others' objections that insufficient evidence of disruption has been adduced here, but I've seen plenty in the past, and the current situation indicates nothing has changed. I gave bus stop the benefit of the doubt last time, but he still doesn't appear to grasp "Jew" does not adequately capture the distinctions between "of the Jewish faith", "observant", "ethnically Jewish", "of Jewish heritage", "mother is Jewish". This editor lacks the subtlety needed for work in this area.

And would someone please block User:Alansohn for the duration of this discussion, at least, and permanently ban them if they repeat that "antisemitic" claim again? Andy's complaint was not an antisemitic rant. You have misunderstood, Alansohn. Andy is not an anti-semite, nor any other kind of bigot. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Bus Stop is sometimes right and sometimes wrong on substance of these issues. I do not see the recent conduct rising to the level where a topic ban is called for. Andy is often right on the substance of the issues but his rhetorical flourishes such as "clueless Jew-tagging troll" are really excessive. I've got a thick skin and am not easily offended, but as a Jew, I find this language pretty darned offensive. In all honesty, it hurts my feelings to read such things even though I am not the target of the attack. I will not conclude that this terminology is anti-Semitic but I will say that it is deeply, profoundly insensitive and hurtful to many readers, not just the specific editor it is directed toward. I've studied the subject of Jewish identity for many years though I don't edit Jewish topics all that much. It is an area of great complexity that defies easy pigeonholing one way or the other. It should be approached with great sensitivity, but sometimes us Wikipedians don't do such a good job with sensitivity, do we? Cullen Let's discuss it 04:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 3 or 5 for the very reasons outlined by Cullen: I didn't keep statistics, but being "sometimes right and sometimes wrong" on the issue, and then 1) refusing to accept that he was wrong 2) arguing his case to death with massive WP:IDHT, BLP violations and 3) apparent obsession with the subject are more than enough reasons for the topic ban. I've perused only Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_1#The_infobox_problem, and Bus Stop's behavior really turned my stomach. Not sure if he's trolling or lacks competence, but if he cannot drop the stick after being presented a quoted Miliband's statement "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense., then I don't know what else could work. No such user (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the comment immediately preceding that remark should also be included
...and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 3 or 5 A topic ban is necessary in light of Bus Stop's persistent refusal to accept that, per BLP, we go by the self-identification of the subject for matters of personal identity such as religion. On the evidence available, 4 is too broad, per Andy. 1 and 2 would not prevent the interminable talk page discussions, which are perhaps the most problematic things as they, predictably, tend to get somewhat heated since Bus Stop exhibits chronic IDIDNTHEARTHAT and refusal to accept consensus. When people are confronted by patently specious arguments such as that they don't apply the same standards to other religions (e.g. "use of Christian") they tend to lose patience. It is pretty hard to accept that someone in good faith fails to realise that "Christian" is not an ethnicity and is therefore not ambiguous as "Jewish" is, so it's not surprising that they get called a "troll". Neljack (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Any and all, as per all of the above. The tenor of this discussion belies the underlying biased editing and POV-pushing problems endemic to the topic area, and the pushers rarely get checked here. The amount of time and effort wasted on quelling such tendentiousness is counterproductive, to say the least. And comments like "Religion-hating crowd" and the accusations (veiled or otherwise) of antisemitism are beyond counterproductive.
  

I have my doubts about the arbitrary use of indefinite bans, however, for a first "conviction", so to speak. I think it would probably be better to assign a period, such as a year, and then see how the editor edits upon return to the topic area before imposing an indefinite ban.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:21, 23:29 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm re-adding Option 5, as several people have voted for it, and it was removed without any discussion. Please do not remove it again, as several editors have expressed support for it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please see talk page discussion. NE Ent 09:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stop it. All you've done now is make a potentially confusing situation look even worse, by moving the option into a really, really stupid place - one where most people will miss it. Particularly as most of the "support all" votes above your mess indicate that they would support any kind of sanction in this area. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support option 3. The others seem either too oblique or too broad for the problem. I can speak only for Bus stop's behavior in the Belfort article and his many discussions in the past at BLPN, but his comments are like a mantra, endlessly echoing the same theme in a doggedly civil manner (sometimes I'd rather he were less civil, frankly). As for Andy, although it's not the subject of this proposal, I pretty much agree with Drmies. Andy's manner can be obnoxious. He's also usually right substantively. And we all know how we treat incivility in general at ANI and, in particular, incivility from good editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• support all, I think a broader topic ban would cover things sufficiently. Pass a Method talk 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient evidence presented in the form of diffs to merit any of the proposed outcomes. This is actually a good matter for ArbCom, I hesitate to say. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Short incivility block for User:AndyTheGrump

• In response to the pings in the correctly collapsed section above, naturally I was referring to Bus stop when I said "The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable". The fact that someone has cherry picked bits of text including my comment to support a view they favor is regrettable, but is typical of the misunderstandings seen in the entire thread. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A sincere apology with hopes of getting on a solid footing (eventually) of providing non-contentious and productive input to our project

NOTICE: In the face of so much opposition, I offer my sincere apologies to everyone for any unintended words, my intention is only to help Misplaced Pages and I have the highest regard and respect for all of my fellow editors. For the foreseeable future I have made the decision to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention and will limit myself to WP:NPOV editing since there is so much else to do on WP. It pains me to see so much discord and it is a waste of everybody's time, so therefore I wish everyone all the very best and I look forward to harmonious relationships with everyone. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that apology, I can only respond by too offering my apologies for any offence that may have been caused by what with hindsight were evidently ill-chosen words. I'll make no apologies for my defence of Misplaced Pages policy, and for what I sincerely believe is the best interests of both the Misplaced Pages readership and the subjects of our articles, and have no intention of ceasing such endeavours - I will however attempt to use more temperate language in doing so, if only because a reasoned argument is likely to be more productive than another of my ill-considered outbursts. And for the record, I would like to make it clear that I was sincere in my earlier post regarding proposed blocking options when I suggested that Bus Stop's art-related edits seemed to me to be a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. I hope he will continue in this, and will find the harmony he seeks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia chauchat

Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately this user is becoming increasingly difficult to work with; her civility problems have already been raised at ANI back in December 2013, yet she continues to smear an entire WikiProject (yes, of which I am a member) as "circle jerks" - complete with a link to the article on the sexual practice, just to make sure her meaning is crystal clear, latest diff here. Interesting to note her problematic editing/edit warring was brought here just last week. As she seems unable to engage in civilized discussion, without restoring to repeated childish insults, I seek wider input here. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's unacceptable. I have warned and will block for any repetition. --John (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks John. GiantSnowman 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is pure WP:ADMINSHOPing. No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here. This noticeboard doesn't exist for you to keep telling tales, over and over again, in the hope that a (fellow) weak or incompetent admin will do what you want and hand out a block. Much worse has been flung in my direction but my eyes remain dry and I'm not running here every five minutes, wasting peoples' time. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the issue of your language and civility problems has been raised once before here; if you think it is "three or four" then that obviously indicates we have a larger problem than I first thought. GiantSnowman 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, suffice to say all the complaints were completely ignored. That suggests that not everyone shares WP:FOOTBALL's outrage (which you regularly express on their behalf). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because only members of that WikiProject have concerns about your behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review the last comment by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) at WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman and her previous comment, where she accuses me of "ethnic cleansing". I am really offended by her behaviour and do not think she's being civil one bit towards me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review Fenix down (talk · contribs)'s comment at the same discussion. He accuses me of being "arse about tit", which has wounded my inner child. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Template:Uninvolvededitor: "A (fellow) weak or incompetent admin..."? Clavdia, I can't even begin to tell you how many things are wrong with that statement... Erpert 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Claudia's been a problem from the start, and is clearly going to continue to be so. I'd propose a topic ban from anything to do with WikiProject Football, because I've struggled to find anything this user has provided that is productive in this area. I particularly like how "No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here" is perceived to be a good thing to Clavdia; what would actually be a good thing is to never having been brought here at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban for all these reasons. Erpert 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban. There are obvious civility issues at play here, but her first comment in the AfD has enough substance to it that I would view it as a productive contribution. Civility and personal attacks are enforceable issues on their own, but aren't justification for a topic ban. If you'd like to topic ban her, please provide diffs that go beyond an AfD with an uncivil comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talk:Australia national association football team should provide you with a multitude of evidence. As does the ANI thread linked to in the initial post; there she echoed the "circle jerk" comment. That link on its own is pretty solid evidence of why her presence in this area is incredibly unhelpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban While Claudia's language has certainly left something to be desired, we should be slow to shut down discussions of sexism and other forms of systemic bias. The scope of the topic ban is also quite unclear - every article on soccer is within the scope of the WikiProject, so is that supposed to mean that she's topic banned from all of them? Or is it just supposed to mean that she's topic banned from talking about or interacting with the WikiProject? Neljack (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• All of them, yes, that's the point of the topic ban. I have no issue with someone bringing up issues with sexism, but Clavdia is simply here to attack anyone who won't let her get her way, and has contributed absolutely nothing positive to the debates she has been involved in recently. She provides absolutely no evidence for her claims, makes claims that are absolutely and obviously false (like the claim of there being no female members of the WikiProject, for example; she lists herself as being part of a taskforce that is run by the very WikiProject that she constantly attacks). This is why she needs to be removed from the subject area, as she is purely and simply a disruptive editor, who gives absolutely nothing of value to the debates she involves herself in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can be bothered to plough through the talk page at Australia national football team, they'll find and which, in terms of "uncivility", are several categories worse than anything I find myself here for. Neljack is right, these constant WP:LAME attempts to get me blocked are more about putting a chilling effect on legitimate criticism. I've already addressed the circle jerk metaphor here. Do I think WP:FOOTY's 'activists' literally meet round at GiantSnowman's house for a game of soggy biscuit? No. Yuck. Do I share the widely-held suspicion that there is a disturbing lack of diversity at that project, and serious ongoing problems with sexism and ethnocentrism/xenophobia: yes. These activists (ie the ones who spend more time on political stuff like this than creating or improving articles) have created a wikiproject in their own image - pale, male and stale. If Misplaced Pages was a house then WP:FOOTY would be a teenaged boy's bedroom which smells of farts and gets a wide berth from everyone else. I know that rather than confront these issues, the forumshopping will continue and I'll find myself here every couple of weeks until an obliging admin gives them what they want. But that doesn't mean I'll be cowed from further productive contribtions in the meantime. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban is not needed - and would prevent her from doing 99% of her solid editing work anyway, seeing as her taskforce falls under the remit of WP:FOOTBALL (whether she likes it or not) - and neither is a block (yet). What is needed is for CC to recognise that her language/behaviour is not welcome or useful and is becoming an incresing problem; the same goes for her combative, almost WP:BATTLEGROUND stance both here, at her talk page, and and at the AFD. GiantSnowman 13:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So you brought me here again to have me admonished and to hope I'll 'recant'? I'm not sure that's really what this noticeboard is for. Still, the credulous John (interests: Scottish football) could hardly get his yellow card out quickly enough so I suppose it's mission complete. I remain surprised that a "childish insult" could arouse such petulant indignation. Perhaps, deep down, some members of that project recognise the description of themselves? Perhaps they are pretending to be offended in order to shut down valid criticism? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I won't block you for insulting me. However, I am noting that you have responded to complaints about your insulting editors by throwing more insults around. Since you have raised doubts about my competence and impartiality, I shall be sure to bring any block I need to make here for review after I make it. I still very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you raised doubts about competence and impartiality with your own insulting and high-handed input. You've completely ignored evidence of editors directly telling me to "fuck off" and instead pretended that my "regrettable pattern of combativeness" took place in a vacuum. Your first threat to block me over what you thought was a "nasty edit" (as nasty as telling a fellow editor to fuck off?) was hasty. Your repeated threats increasingly oppressive and disproportionate. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs Highlighting Clavdia's Behaviour

• One - whilst perfectly within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, the edit summary openly acknowledges that she has offended editors on more than one occasion.
• Two - the frankly quite strange accusation of ethnic cleansing, essentially accusing editors of wanting to delete articles purely on the subject's nationality.
• Three - unfounded and unsupported accusations of disengenuous editing by others
• Four - further unfounded accusations of bias against an apparent cabal of editors at WP:FOOTY whom she doesn't name.
• Five - additional aggressive comments about "jerking" from a previous ANI about her edits.
• Six - more unfounded accusations of bias and how there is an always unnamed group of editrs against her
• Seven - again well within her rights to remove what she likes from her talk page, but refusal to acknowledge that her accusations and language are offending editors. Instead brands a perfectly civil message from Giant Snowman as "creepy"
• Eight - additional claims of a "circle jerk" within WP:FOOTY
• Nine - more ad hominem attacks against editors she perceivess as being against her views but never named.
• Ten - unfounded claims of sexism at WP:FOOTY
• Eleven - aggressive refusal to get involved in any suggestion that her conduct might not really be what is deisred
• Twelve - refusal to get involved in an AfD that wasn't going the way she wanted other than to call the nomination "inane" and claim widespread coverage without making any effort to support her claims
• Thirteen - Aggressively accusing another editor of being "lazy, sloppy pathetic" and to "go back to editor school"
• Fourteen - Accusing GS of no being bothered to source things
• Fifteen - Further aggressive ad hominem attacks on GS accusing him of "wrecking" an article
• Sixteen - Unsupported accusations of WP:OWN

Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that these are not exactly the worst example of aggressive and offensive behaviour that WP has ever seen, but it only covers the last four months and is indicative of an editor who seems to have significant issues when things do not go her way. I would be infavour of a topic ban, but feel that this might be counterproductive. Clavdia is a good editor who is heavily involved in women's football articles which are neglected in general by WP.

However, that is the point, they are neglected, not undesired. There is no cabal trying to run the project specifically counter to her views, it is merely that in a number of instances her opinion is not in line with consensus. When things don't go her way, she regularly resorts to unfounded accusations against admins, editors and the project in general. Is it possible to have a topic ban on just for talk pages and AfD for a while, as this is where the issues lie, not with her general editing? I would support this but acknowledge it would not give her an avenue to validly challenge any issues other than reverting.

Overall, I think Clavdia needs most importantly to calm down, acknowledge that there have been regular instances in the last four months or so when things have not gone her way, but that the way to win battles is through consensus, not through mud slinging, claiming bias, chaivanism and "circle jerking" (which is incredibly immature and cannot possibly help support anything). If there is no form of topic ban gneral or just on discussion pages, then a final warning at least would seem appropriate, this is not the first ANI on this editor. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If these are the best you could WP:cherrypick I think it's becoming desperate and a bit embarrassing. I won't go through them all but I take issue with the recurrent nonsense about "unsupported and unfounded". In Twelve, for example, I did provide evidence of coverage, which of course was ignored. 13 through 16, Giant Snowman unilaterally drove a bus through the article, removing swathes of easily-referenced and non contentious material without lifting a finger to try and reference any of it. When I queried this he admitted that he "didn't have time" then pompously informed me that I don't understand the relevant policy or guidelines! I invite anyone to read the full discussion, rather than the one side presented here, and arrive at their own judgment. The circle jerk thing and the problems with exclusively-male WP:FOOTY are dealt with above. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find in 12 you didn't provide a single link to a source indicating GNG, you just claimed there was coverage. This is the problem, when things don't go your way you just start spouting generalisations and invective without ever backing them up (like in your post above where diffs are provided and you then just call them desparate and embarrassing and only discuss a ocuple that you feel you can challenge). If there was such coverage, why did you not simply provide some links? Kind of suggests things aren't nonsense. In the other example, GS is merely removing completely unsourced elements, the history exists and elements can be added back if and when sources are found. There was no removal of any sourced information except in one instance where the source was a Wordpress blog and it is fair to call the elements removed unreffed OR. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that's wrong - in 12 I added several WP:RSs to the article. My content dispute with Giant Snowman (more than four months ago btw), if it's supposed to evidence WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, is very tepid and applies equally to both participants — notwithstanding your selective quoting. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• You never addressed WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E there. Or even came close to, instead making the same pointless personal attacks against anyone who holds a different viewpoint to you (and this isn't even one of your regular targets of abuse). Nor do your claims of "cherry picking" make any sense here; it's a list of your incivility, so of course it will only contain links to you being incivil. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• CC, if you accuse these editors of cherry picking in our 'dispute', which you say was 2 sided, please feel free to provide diffs of my apparent poor behaviour, in the spirit of BOOMERANG. GiantSnowman 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be making Claudia's point, giving the sexist overtones of telling women to calm down. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Neljack: - why are you bringing gender into this? Is one user only allowed to suggest another calm down if they are of the same gender? You might wish to review your previous comment and consider how it could appear offensive to people. You may also wish to question the inherent assumptions you have made about other editors' genders in making that comment. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Fenix down for your diligence in collecting these diffs. As you say, they are not the worst but they do show a pattern of combativeness which is regrettable. The circle jerk thing is a line in the sand and I will block over that if it recurs. Two serious questions; apart from the annoyance that User:Clavdia chauchat exhibits against the football project, are there other instances of personal attacks from her? Secondly, is there any justification for her charges of sexism and racism in our coverage of footballers? We do have a duty to counter systemic bias on our project. If the answer to question 2 is "yes" or "maybe", it would not justify Clavdia's behaviour but it could explain it and offer a different avenue to fix the problem. Thoughts? --John (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The answer to question 2 is no. We have, in addition to GNG, a clear guideline that requires a player to play for a club in a fully-professional league for them to have an article. The reason this was developed (over a decade ago) was because it was thought to be the best measure of notability, as professional status is inherently linked to the popularity of the sport, which itself links directly to notability. In some countries (for men's football) and most countries (for women's football) the domestic league is not popular enough to support professional clubs. If they are unable to draw sufficient crowds to support professionalism, this suggests their notability is also questionable.
  • No doubt my sincerity will be called into question because I am English and male, but my main interest in football is in the semi-professional leagues. The club I support plays at the eighth level of English football, and I am fully aware of the fact that the players I watch are in no way notable (except for the odd one or two who are winding down from a professional career). However, the club has a better average attendance than more than half the clubs in the Estonian top division. How could players in that league be considered notable when so few people are actually interested in what they are doing? Number 57 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

From my experience there does seem to be such sexism (I can't comment on racism). It may well be unconscious, but it is nonetheless troubling. The resistance to incorporating the word "men" in articles about men's national teams is a good example. There is also an attempt to inflexibly apply a notability guideline that is not suited to female players without giving any consideration to issues of systemic bias. There really should be a separate notability guideline for female players, and possibly separate WikiProjects for men's and women's association football. That might reduce the conflict. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the guideline unsuitable for women footballers? By and large, women's football is far less popular as a spectator sport - the average attendance in the Women's Super League in England last year was under 600, roughly equivalent to the sixth level of men's football (and the second level of semi-professional football) - which means the players themselves are less notable. Those that play international football do have articles, because playing for your country is obviously going to make someone notable, but is someone who plays part-time for Birmingham City and has never played international football notable? If they are, then they'll pass the GNG, but I can't see how a separate guideline could be applied. The difference in status/popularity may be down to sexism in the outside world, but it's not Misplaced Pages's job to put this right - we are not a activist organisation. And as with semi-pro men's football, I also watch women's football, even travelling to Germany to watch the last women's world cup. However, but as with semi-professional men's football, I am aware that the players I watch are not of the same notability level as professional counterparts. Number 57 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@John: - I only went back over the last four months and those were the examples I could find. I don't want to turn this into a witch hunt so I would say I am not aware of any other instances recently, but overall her responses to this ANI highlight the issue: namely a complete inability to acknowledge offence caused and, regardless of the validity of her claims, that at best she is also creating friction and issues which are not helping her case.

I disagree with @Neljack: about the notion of inflexibility on notability guidelines. WP:NFOOTY is the current consensus agreement on a first step to establishing GNG. Essentially it states that a player must have played in a FULLY professional league or played senior international football to be notable. There are regretably fewer fully professional female leagues, but I am unaware of any instance where a player of either gender has been deleted where they pass this criteria except on occasion where a player only just passed through 1 FPL appearance in their whole career.

This is not the only criterion however, GNG is always considered as well. Here the issue revolves around WP:ROUTINE and it is generally accepted consensus at WP:FOOTY that match reports which state merely that an individual played / scored are routine sports journalism and their quantity is irrelevant to estabhlishing GNG. What is needed is in depth articles on the player themselves (i.e. interviews, etc.) Again, I am unaware of instances where such sources have been applied to an article which has been deleted through AfD. Clavdia has created a large number of articles on female footballers which remain because they not only pass NFOOTY but also GNG. I think the point here is that worldwide, the womens game gets less coverage and there are fewer fully professional leagues. It is a function of the current state of the women's game that it is more difficult for a player not in an FPL or an international to pass GNG.

This does not mean that the means by which NFOOTY is viewed cannot be changed. However, Clavdia has made no attempt to put together a reasoned argument and present it at WT:FOOTY. I would suggest if she genuinely feels there are instances of bias / sexism then she should put together a user page that shows this clearly and present it to WP:FOOTY. If this does not get a satisfactory response, then she can always take it further to here or another forum. That would be more preferable than petty name calling and obstructive behaviour. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1) No 2)Yes Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's customary to provide evidence for your opinion here. Could you please do so if you expect to be taken seriously? --John (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to provide evidence that I haven't made any personal attacks. How do you suppose I do this? Could you provide evidence that you haven't made any? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My behaviour is not under review here, yours is. Have you edited productively and harmoniously in any other areas? Can you provide evidence to support your opinion that sexism and racism are a problem in our coverage of footballers? --John (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look at Talk:Australia national association football team for your evidence. You're already WP:INVOLVED there, aren't you? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think there have been any other issues other than those mentioned in the diffs above, unless of course we count the general attitude being shown in this discussion. I would also hardly call John involved on that page as he has posted once to enquire what on earth is going on. Regards the many long-winded arguements on the Oz National football team talk page, they all seem to revolve around WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

It is clear from the discussion that on the one side are two editors whose use names appear to be female, and on the other side several other editors opposing whose user names, with the exception of Lukeno94, do not allow conclusions as to gender to be drawn. Clavdia, has however, taken it upon herself to assume that because she is female and people are arguing against her in a discussion surrounding gender issues within an article title that they must therefore be male. This is not a conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion (and I must admit I am not aware of the gender of any of the users involved where it is not obvious, despite having regular interation on football pages).

At no point does anyone make any indication that they favour an outcome on grounds that could be considered sexist, both in terms of the arguments that have been put forward and also because their gender is in the main unidentifiable. This discussion is symptomatic of my impression of Clavdia's attitude in general in the last few months when things don't go her way, namely she claims that everyone against her takes that position because of her gender, or some other perceived bias such as here despite being unwilling / unable to provide any concrete evidence that that is the case. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the two sides there were the problematic WP:FOOTY faction versus everyone else, who doubtless were a cross section of healthy, normal society including men. The hostility started from WP:FOOTY with childish feet stamping, accompanied by accusations of "campaigning" and POV pushing. It's not campaigning, we just don't accept this small project pissing on our feet and telling us it's raining: ie. "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias" etc. As an encyclopedia we have to be better than that. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia, can you provide a diff that illustrates "It's not our bias, we're just reflecting inherent bias", or is this just your interpretation of what you think others are doing? --John (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted you didn't start it but you behave just as badly in that thread, others' behaviour is no excuse for your own. It's one of the reasons that no consensus has been reached in any of the cdebates recently on that talk page, because both sides just descend into petty comments. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet I'm the one brought here to be gently upbraided? After some fairly enthusiastic WP:WIKISTALKING you've dredged up your, er, evidence of low-level naughtiness. You've found a friendly involved admin to do the ticking off. Why don't we just get back to the correct forum for these discussions? Further sanctimonious waffle is doing nothing to disprove WP:FOOTY's reputation as a "boring or time-wasting meeting or other event". Also can refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion amongst a group of people. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review my block of Clavdia chauchat

As I indicated above, I wish to seek a review of my block of Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I warned her here not to compare those she disagreed with to those who indulge in an obscure sexual practice, but she has gone ahead and repeated the behaviour I asked her not to. As she has indicated above that she has doubts about my competency as an admin, I think it only proper to seek other input. Let it be known that I have every sympathy with the position that there is sexism in our coverage of football, and if I see evidence of such I will do my utmost to ensure it is addressed. We will nevertheless not solve alleged sexist behaviour by casting obscene aspersions on others. If Clavdia can indicate she has learned from what has happened and undertake not to repeat the behaviour, I will of course have no objection to the block being shortened or remitted. At present it is for 24 hours. --John (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - You gave fair warning. Her constant hostile battleground behaviour and gross references to circle jerking are not welcome. JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Good block Behavior is 100% inappropriate. I'd support an indef if it continues. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I've only recently become aware of this ANI discussion, but the overt and offensive misandristic behaviour is entirely worthy of a block, particularly in light of the discussions here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious support - She was warned, she knew exactly what she was doing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ridiculous block "Circle jerk" is a quite commonly-used term for a group of people who agree with each other in a somewhat repetitive or self-congratulatory manner. I've never regarded it as particularly offensive. I hardly think that anyone is actually going to take it as an imputation regarding the sexual practices of members of WP:FOOTY. The suggestion of misandry is utterly unsupported and absurd. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Neljack misses the point entirely, it is not about certain words being used or not, it is about civility. The issue is around a combative editor who has made quite serious claims around sexism / bias when discussions on talk pages don't go her way repeatedly in the last few months without providing even a shred of support for these, and whilst others in certain circumstances on the Australia football team talk page also appear to have been potentially offensive towards her, she has responded in kind or in other documented instances above kicked off hostilities. She has continualy refused to acknowledge that she could even be slightly in the wrong regarding civility and in this ANI has essentially indicated that she intends to go on behaving in an incivil manner depite a number of editors requesting formally that she review her behaviour. Her like-for-like attitude is unacceptable, though her block should not be taken to mean she is the only one in the wrong in some instances. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

She was blocked for using this term, not for a general pattern of incivility or for making claims about sexism. And I would dispute that statement that she hasn't provided evidence for claims of sexism or bias - she's referred to the discussion on the appropriate title for the article on the Australian men's soccer team, where sexist assumptions - whether conscious or unconscious - seem to me to be common. You may not think this evidence is sufficient to support her claims, but that is a different matter - she is not required to provide evidence that will convince you. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• She was explicitly warned about using this exact term, and still went ahead and used it. How can you claim the block is ridiculous based on that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the warning is not justified then neither is the block. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• So you're saying that a warning about using a term that was clearly offensive to multiple people wasn't justified? Seriously? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• May be moot – I hope I'm mistaken, but it looks like Clavdia didn't appreciate your block, John. She has had her userpage deleted, along with six or seven nine highly developed articles she was creating in her sandboxes. Did you know she had created 324 new articles? You may not realize, John, how offensive that first block can be to an editor with a clean block log. To repeat, I hope I'm mistaken about her intentions, but if I'm correct, your block has damaged the project. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it won't have done, as in recent times, she's been causing more harm than good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• If John can overlook the behaviour of Mr. Civility (MF/EC), he can overlook Clavdia's behaviour too. Why didn't he? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever John did in a different case is entirely irrelevant here. He warned Clavdia about using this exact term, and she went ahead regardless. She knew exactly what she was doing, and got the block she'd been warned about. Claiming this block was offensive is baffling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Consistency in an admin is never irrelevant. (And, maybe you'll understand better how offensive a first block can be when you earn your first block.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• An IP threatening me? Aww, how cute. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, to reiterate 71.178.50.222's point, being blocked can be a slap in the face, especially if you're trying to eventually earn adminship. A lot of RfAs have been opposed because an editor was blocked, even if just once. And for those who don't want to be an admin, other editors will gloat that they have clean block logs versus your blemished log. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Providing you can edit for a year without getting another block then most RFA !voters will regard most old blocks as lessons learned, especially if you or your nominator can say how your behaviour has subsequently changed. For a block to derail an RFA it needs to be recent or you need to give the impression that you would react the same way today. ϢereSpielChequers 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good block - regardless of how good an editor is, language/attitude like that is not welcome. She has been given fair chance long before John's warning. GiantSnowman 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Well the tragic irony has played out. The poor footy fans all being hugely offended by the term circle jerk, to the point that they have to throw the foul mouthed woman out of their bar, and then gather together to say how necessary it was. FMMonty (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The irony is an editor being "hugely offended" by a short block to prevent further disruption, and being so offended to the point that they're unable to edit Misplaced Pages unless they can do it their way. But when their way of editing involves slinging around insults, that's a problem that needs to be addressed (and was). An editor being blocked for behavior, after being warned that the behavior will lead to a block, is hardly problematic. The block was fine, that someone might not like being blocked (who would?) is not a consideration for preventing disruption to Misplaced Pages. - Aoidh (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh the block was exactly within the letter of the rules. FMMonty (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editor: User:KazekageTR

The editor KazekageTR is apparently in a feud with me in the Turkey article and constantly engages in edit wars, including the removal of textual/factual content which I am adding. His/her primary contribution to the article is "engaging in a fight for arbitrarily and forcefully changing the pictures" and nothing more. He/she merely "copy-pastes" these pictures (including their caption text) from other articles (like Economy of Turkey, Culture of Turkey, etc), without even writing the captions himself/herself. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Does anyone know if one file on Misplaced Pages can only be used in a single article? I didn't see anything prohibiting this in WP:CMF, but I want to be sure. Anyway, normally I would suggest listing this situation at WP:3, but this edit summary is a tad suspicious..."you can't just revert our edits"? Erpert 07:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have rights to do edits just like you and he is reverting our edits cause he dosent like them. By the way in my lastest edits, I didin't add anything i've just made some rearrengements thats all. And i dont see a rule that prohibits me from copy pasting pictures(including their caption). By the way I am naming you as the Problematic Error from now on, as you didint said anything to me before you put this section here! KazekageTR (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're naming whom the problematic error (or did you mean "editor"?), me or LoR? Erpert 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

KazekageTR has a point, you're supposed to discuss any issues with the editor first before running here. ANI should be the last resort after discussion has failed. As it stands, there has been no discussion on either of your talk pages nor on the article talk page. Technically, both of you could be blocked for edit warring, something which I see Lord of Rivendell was blocked for back in December. If you can't hash it out on article talk, go to WP:DRN. Blackmane (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way it was LoR, Erpert. KazekageTR (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Whatzinaname content removal at Media bias in the United States, refusal to engage in discussion, vows to see content removed

Could use an admin's attention over at Talk:Media bias in the United States#most of the conservative bias section should be removed. Whatzinaname started the talk page thread saying a whole section was wrong and needed to be removed. Other users and I engaged him in discussion, asking him for specifics. He repeatedly refused e.g. "YOU be specific. I'm not paid to connect invisible dots or prove negatives, nor am I paid to deal with your inability to comprehend such". He blanked the section on 1/10, I reverted, another non-discussion took place in the same talk page section, and I thought we were done with it. He came back today, blanked it again, and posted this on the discussion page "like I said, the section is gone until someone can actual come with something encyclopedic/factual to include." Doesn't seem to indicate any signs of letting it go or commencing productive discussion. --— Rhododendrites |  05:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For a month, Whatzinaname has been acting in a high-handed fashion here, asserting that serious problems exist and removing content without engaging in discussion about the specifics or suggesting alternatives. The most recent comment, "like I said, the section is gone until someone can actual come with something encyclopedic/factual to include" indicates a commitment to remove content unless other editors comply with and accept the editor's own POV. All that being said, this seems to be a primarily a content dispute, and perhaps a simple reminder directed to Whatzinaname that this is a collaborative project based on respectful interaction and consensus might help things. Or maybe not. Let's see how it goes. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

it's not a question of POV. it's a POF point of fact that the information being removed does not establish any kind of conservative bias. not a shred. as an editor here my job is to clean this place up, not make excuses for why it's a mess. If that's too "high handed" for you, tough luck. Whatzinaname (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "blank a section" at any point. I removed a bunch of irrelevant information from the section after having exhausted the talk page of any idea on what was salvageable. You nor anyone else could provide a single thing in that entire section that was salvageable that established any appearance of bias, as I asked you to do multiple times. Now you are crying foul because I'm doing my duty as an editor here and removing what is clearly not what the section is supposed to be about. As I also said in the talk you can move much of it into its own "corporate" bias section, but it can't remain in the current section Whatzinaname (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess, maybe not. Here is an aggressive, non-collaborative attitude on display for all to see, insisting without consensus that something "can't remain". Of course, the article can be improved, through collaborative editing as opposed to a combative attitude. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The section of that article doesn't really look bad to me (the authors subsection could stand a few more sources though), but seriously, Whatzinaname, people are calmly asking you what's wrong with the article, and all you're doing is responding combatively. You said "as an editor here, job is to clean this place up"...well, that's all our jobs. As Cullen and other editors have said, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, and you seem to be behaving as though you own that article. That's not how things work around here. Erpert 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

well, if doesn't look that bad to you, feel free to post in the talk page specifically what you feel establishes any kind of evidence of a conservative bias in the media. This is starting to be like an abbot and Costello routine and I tire of my time being wasted on it.Whatzinaname (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this user's attitude is anything new, which is unfortunate because this editor's agenda here is to give us lowly mortals WP:THETRUTH. But unfortunately, if the reverts continue without discussion and in a battleground fashion, he likely won't be in a position to teach us of his higher ways and we'll all be worse off for it. Nformation 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"discussions" have already occurred, and since no one could establish the relevance of the material in the specific section in question as requested multiple times in talk, it has been removed. 2+2 does not equal 5, even if if you add it to a wiki-page. So sorry, mon ami. 11:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not something that any one editor decides. If you think discussion on the talk page has exhausted its usefulness then you must follow the guidelines described in WP:DR, such as calling for wider community input via an WP:RFC, or filing a dispute resolution request at WP:DRN. If you're not willing to do that then you'll have to leave the article for others to handle. Repeatedly reverting the material will not achieve your desired results. Nformation 11:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It' worth pointing out that this isn't new behavior for Whatzinaname. Some months ago he wasted an enormous amount of editor time at Malcolm X. He opened with, "The lede is rife with issues that need quality sourcing. haven't even bothered to look at the rest of the article, but the lede is atrocious by any standard. How the hell this absolute trash of an article got FA is astonishing", then started ringing the changes.:

• No source supports that
• OK, but those sources aren't reliable
• OK, they're reliable, but they don't say that
• OK, they do say that but it shouldn't be in the article
• OK, it should be in the article, but with less emphasis
• OK, I'm out of arguments but I'll tell you now I'll just keep reverting until I get my way

Typical passages:

• Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 7#too_bad:

• Other editor (me, actually): But your other concerns have been unanimously rejected by other editors.
• Whatzinaname: That's too bad because it's not staying the way it is.

• Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 7#every_day:

• Other editor (me again): With two or three more endorsements consensus will be unanimous
• Whatzinaname: LOL. Nice threats. I'll come back and revert it every damn day if its against wikipedia guidelines, which this perverse mixture of rumor-mongering and cherry picking information clearly is. You can take your fairy tale narrative of MX's life to the internet message boards you haunt. Just keep it out of Misplaced Pages

EEng (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

that's absolutely hilarious you would post this in here. You might actually find an admin who gives a damn and they might actually take note of your behavior on that wiki, and you might find yourself perma-blocked, like you should have been banned a looooooooong time ago. 08:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

Pehaps, perhaps not, but not hilarious is that you took my post as a prompt to resume exactly the behavior complained of above, newing your unintelligible complaints about the Malcolm X article by opening a new thread there called Talk:Malcolm X#fairy_tale_narratives_don't_belong_on_wikipedia. EEng (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth777333 -- Disruptive Problematic Editor

User:Truth777333 is currently being a disruptive, POV Pushing, problematic, and an OR editor to the Moors article.

He has made tons of disruptive tendentious POV OR edits to the page over the past day and has been reverted multiple times by me and other editors for his editorial.

Here are all his edits under the name User:Truth777333:

#1 #2 #3 -- as you can see I explain my reason for reversion in the same 3rd diff] #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 (he made an edit under an IP this time for #8) #9 (as you can see he got reverted by User:SQGibbon in the same diff for #9.) #10 #11 and as you can see in the last diff (#11) he gets reverted by User:Stephenb

After explaining my reason for reversion (the first time) he comes to my talk page and says this on it which is basically 'I am black and of Moorish descent and your reversions are racist and excluding my culture and I'll file a lawsuit'. Yes, he really threatened the possible use of a lawsuit for reverting him which was following WP guidelines, and I think it's quite clear with that post he has a POV. So basically he has been reverted various times by me and other editors. There has obviously been valid elucidation for these reverts as I've told him my reason for reverting multiple times, yet he still continues to make the same tendentious disruptive POV OR edits to the Moors page and does not even attempt to build consensus too. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The adage that "any editor with Truth in their username will generally have a very slanted POV" still holds true. Time for the NLT indef block. Blackmane (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

BlackMane: Your assumption about the name "Truth" in my name is a strategy that you are trying to employ to have be blocked. Is this even valid? Who is responsible for blocking individuals. I assume their has to be a policy that governs this and assumptions about their choice of username is most likely not apart of this criterion.

I believe he just made a thread about me with the title "ShawntheGod is being disruptive , racist, and exclusive of objective verifiable scientific evidence". Actually, that's his thread, no doubt. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I should say that my revert was based on (a) the information was being added in the wrong place - I've no problem with the article having something on the ethnicity of Moors, though not right up there in the lede and providing it is well-referenced, and (b) the assertion that there has been "much controversy" based on a single reference (which seems to be a large block quote from a book, and does not directly support any "controversy") seemed dubious and a POV. Stephenb (Talk) 11:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Stephenb: If this wasn't a "controversial " issue then why am I getting so much push back from participants on this forum. That is paarticularly why I chose to use the word "controversial."

Hello. I'm not claiming the issue isn't controversial either, it may well be. But I don't think the quote you that added supported that - when a claim about controversy is added to a Misplaced Pages article, it should ideally be accompanied by references that support the claim that there is such a controversy. Whether your edit itself is controversial, for different reasons, on Misplaced Pages is incidental to this. Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 08:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I don't wanna make a new thread so I just decided to make this post. It seems that we're dealing with another disruptive tendentious editor on the Moors page. Just check the history here and this time the editor goes by the name Get.a.life and has been reverted 7 times over the past couple hours. He does not attempt to build consensus either, but instead just keeps trying to incorporate his major change into the article again and again. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:78.31.37.43 - Orthodox Presbyterian Church - persistant edit warring, using edits as a talk page

These two sections of the page are unsourced, the one source provided is a picture with no explanation of content at the source that relates to the paragraphs.

The IP address listed has repeatedly added these sections to the article over the last week and has shown no inclination, despite requests, to discuss it on the talk page. I didn't want to get into an edit war so I brought it here, not sure if that's the correct next step or not. SPACKlick (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He is WP:SPA. I am on the page now. Noteswork (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have created the best sourced section in the entire article. SPACKlick has consistently deleted sections for no good reason, has started an unnecessary edit war, and vandalized the article. He has a long history of this with other articles. This section is written from a NPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.47.43 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm the current coordinator at DRN. I've just rejected a request in regard to this article because it asked for things that DRN does not do (and it would have also been rejected because of this pending ANI listing, but I didn't know this was here until after I closed it). What we have is an IP editor repeated adding mostly unsourced and original research material regarding the racial and LGBT positions and makeup of this denomination over the objection of other editors. Since this request was made here at ANI, a small team of editors has formed to revert the edits by the IP editor, but what's really needed is about a month of semi-protection to stop the current EW. We can then see if additional action is needed if the IP decides to continue to grind the axe by registering an account or coming back after the protection expires. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Semiprotection of the article for the time being. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

He got a 3-hour block starting at 17:33, 30 January 2014. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been new IP editors piling in and an EW over tagging. I've asked for indef pending changes temp semi at RPP. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Request changed to semi. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency sock/meatpuppets at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worldcoin

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

Came across this AfD yesterday. Several blatant WP: MEATpuppets are casting !votes due to a reddit thread here. I struck out the meapuppet !votes, but Argyle mistook my edit as vandalism and reverted my striking. Semiprotection would be helpful at this point as meatpuppet accounts continue to skew discussion. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The relevant SPI is here.--Jezebel'sPonyo 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs), reverts the Holy anointing oil article to a recent unsourced version, first made here> He also calls a legitimate and neutral post at a WikiProject, nl. Wikipedia_talk:JUDAISM#Cannabis_in_the_Tanakh "canvassing". En passant he made 4 reverts., , and . Debresser (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are reporting me for reverting once on the article, then reinstating my comment that you wrongly removed from the talkpage four times. You did not present this very honestly. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It was removed legitimately. Such inflammatory posts like yours with unfair headers are regularly removed or edited. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was removed illegitimately. It has bearing on the current pov dispute over whether Sula Benet is reliable for purpose of establishing that the school of thought exists regarding cannabis being used in the Holy anointing oil. They are my comments and not for anyone else to censor. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Debresser, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but no we do not routinely remove posts with "unfair" headers. We do remove inflammatory posts, but that's not that we have here. What you removed is the editor disputing how you've treated the sources and then complained about a call for revert warriors on WP:JUDAISM. You may be correct about the content and sources, but your talk page reverts are unjustified.--v/r - TP 23:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As a 5 year+ editor I can not easily go and find the diffs, but I remember several cases where my headers were edited and my talkpage posts removed for less outrageous claims than the utterly unjustified claim of canvassing in this case.

In addition, what did Til think to achieve with that post, and with making it a separate section? I see nothing constructive there.

I think Til temporarily was not thinking clearly (read: along the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines) in regards to this article: reverting to an unsourced recent edit containing such a strong claim as cannabis usage in Judeo-Christian traditions?! That would have to be impeccably sourced! Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree with you about such an edit to the article needing very high quality sources. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that rebutting the talk page comment would have been better than removing it, particularly more than once. But I will say no more and leave others to weigh in. DES 00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed the talk page history, and the post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism. In my view, the post was not canvassing, and I would also tend to agree with Debresser on the content issue (which isn't relevant to this page of course). However, i don't see that it was legitimate to remove Til Eulenspiegel's talk page comment, much less to edit war over it. Trouts all round. DES 23:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• One name which hasn't been mentioned so far concerning the holy anointing oil spat is Ploxhoi (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a campaign to push the cannabis theories of Sula Benet, who wrote the paper that everyone seems to refer to on the matter. there's been a fair amount of revert brinkmanship in the article over a tag and a very short phrase when really the whole thing suffers from a huge degree of WP:UNDUE on this plainly fringe theory as well as a lot of forking from anointing and chrism and probably several other articles as well. Til is not at all helping with his typical cheerleading on the talk page against us Enforcers of Orthodoxy Who Want to Suppress Dissenters. There has been a lot of recruitment on this issue not so much because we're looking for allies, but because of the paucity of scholarly sources which even care. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why a you claiming I am pushing cannabis theories of Sula Benet? I am trying to keep the article neutral as there are many sources that have shown cannabis is the ingredient and calamus is not. There has been an edit war going on where calamus is being replaced by cannabis and back and forth. I have been trying to keep both cannabis and calamus listed. There are those claiming fringe or are biased and removing cannabis, and there those removing calamus for various reasons. For over a decade I have researched religion and cultures in the middle-east. Most of my research focused on Zoroastrianism and the relation to Christianity. There is clearly an influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism and the Torah. Those that have done any research on Zoroastrianism will know they used cannabis for medical and spiritual uses. I have posted some of the sources in the talk page, but some wish to ignore the sources due to not being Jewish origin and claim fringe. I do not believe Til Eulenspiegel has done anything wrong. Additionally I do believe both ingredients should be listed to keep the page neutral. Ploxhoi (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you're pushing them because, as far as we can tell, this claim traces back to that single source. We have talked at length about the sourcing, and I see that the same problems of plant identification exist in the Zoroastrian case (see Botanical identity of soma–haoma for detailed discussion). Anyway, the further point is that Ploxhoi has a history of this kind of idiosyncratic advocacy. For example I found this older struggle in which he insisted that the number of the beast was supposed to represent the bismillah. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And we are now moving into "out of line territory" in this edit to the talk page in which Til rambles on with allegations (presumably directed at some of us skeptics) that religious beliefs motivate objection to this theory. This is the kind of behavior from him that clogs discussion every time (a) he finds an ally and (b) we (and I say "we" because common interests have all of us washing up at the same articles) hold the line against some fringe position that someone else is dedicated to promoting. It's not religion that makes me doubt this theory; it's that I've never heard it before in an area which I have some knowledge of, and I find it's the pet theory of some outsider group tracing back to one person's dubious "research". And Til shouldn't be engaging in these ad hominems, and he knows by now that he shouldn't because he's been told over and over and over to stop. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What appears to be happening is decades of brainwashing that cannabis is bad by the west, especially the United States, and religious groups now associating cannabis as something terrible and evil. Yes I have state the Soma-Haoma case before, but in the Avesta cannabis is mentioned. I have sourced an Avesta translation book written by Piloo Nanavutty which is considered very good by the Zoroastrian community and in the Avesta bhang is mention for medicinal value. I am not sure of your research Mangoe, but I find cannabis in Zoroastrian research often. The reason you do not hear of cannabis is exactly the same reason why the cannabis point of view was removed from the page. What better way to get rid of theories or information you do not like other than burying that information so nobody else will learn of the research and look further. Whether or not the practice or anointing oil recipe being wrong is blasphemous, or cannabis being this terrible evil plant today, there clearly is strong bias against the idea. As for the bismillah theory of Walid Shoebat, I read several different religious scholar's reviews of his theory. Being peer reviewed and a well know theory I posted the information only after researching the topic. The scholars either agreed with Shoebat, said theory was plausible or were totally against the his theory. Those that were against had several flaws in their analysis. Most commonly repeated error was posting only the printed text and not the original written text and saying there is no obvious relation. Of course this theory is always removed due to posing Islam in a negative light and there are those that will be very biased against such a theory. As for idiosyncratic advocacy, I can post on the talk page peer reviewed, scholastic works, as citations all day long, but there will be those that are biased the will remove the content claiming fringe, uncited, biased, etc... What I am trying to do is place researched and peer review information and theories on the pages to keep the neutral and unbiased. I am not being biased removing anything I feel is against my person beliefs and in fact encourage both sides conflicting views. Burying points of views and research only hinders the path to truth. Ploxhoi (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We have been going over these references, but there is a common pattern: sources which are positive about the cannabis linkages are about cannabis or (less frequently) herbalism, while other articles generally deny the connection. But at any rate the constant trope in the argument of religious motivation for denying the connection is out of line. Personally my reaction to the discussion is surprise at a series of novelties in fields where I might be expected to be aware of these ideas. And what I have found is that the ideas are novel and don't have a lot of provenance. Correcting the prejudices of the ages is not our job. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want more sources I'll have to dig through my collection of many books again. For your information Piloo is a trusted source and I had her book near my desk when seen the section and decided to join the debate. You'll even find her works in the Library of Congress. I am not sure why you keep believing these ideas are novel or perhaps fringe, other than they are rejected by the orthodox or mainstream without any consideration. There are many other sources to cite, but I will have to find the books and cite them. Since this type of research is not my career I will have to make time to do this, as I have been studying the subject for personal interest for 15 years. Additionally I do not see why the works of Sula Benet, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Chris Bennett, Neil McQueen, Victor Sarianidi, and others have to be completely written off, as has been done. I never knew of these people until Misplaced Pages, although others have cited similar findings in the research I had done on Zoroastrianism. They too seem have done extensive research and published cited works for peer review. I am not trying to right great wrong, like I have said before wanting others to know there are other perspectives that have been well researched and should be included in articles in order to keep articles neutral of point of view. I know to cite references, but citing references does not seem to matter to some. There are many reference cited besides the ones I have cited. Just look at my talk page if you want to see the bias of some members on the subject. In some people's minds any ideas outside their box are taboo and need to be removed, even if there is research on the topic and has credible citations. Ploxhoi (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "you'll even find her works in the Library of Congress" is manifest evidence of a lack of competence here. LoC is an indiscriminate collector, and the presence of a work in the collections is evidence of publication, not merit. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position, and frequently features at WP:FTN either pushing fringe views and they end up there (e.g ), or attacking others at FTN and disrupting anything he can . He seems to see himself as some sort of anti-skeptic writing great wrongs. These are just diffs from one specific page, but they happen everywhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"Til generally seems to consider it his duty to push any fringe position" - BLATANT MISCHARACTERIZATION. I have repeatedly noticed that there are all sorts of partisan editors on wikipedia who are all too eager and willing to get their personal pov or hypothesis officially "endorsed" by smearing the countering view or hypothesis as "FRINGE" without real justification. This is seen as a much easier and more convenient way to "settle" unresolved controversies than admitting all the sources, even those we don't like personally. They feel it is wikipedia's role to decide who is orthodox and who the heretics are who must be persecuted with firebrands in hand, despite these other sources being easily available in real-world land, anywhere outside wikipedia's little bubble. Once this has been determined by these editor's determination, they can proceed to "fix" the article so it tells the reader whose view they deem "correct" and can be a one-sided article written to get "in your face" of every reader who disagrees or hold the opposite viewpoint - you know, one of those articles. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the above demonstrates my case more effectively than any words of my own could, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Briefly looked at the first example. I can understand why is fringe, as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. In this case, should the topic be totally removed or included with factual note that the evidence has been authenticated as Borrows refuses to disclose the location and let items be analyzed. Seems a lot like Mormonism, which has not been flagged fringe, but has been noted that the artifacts have never been authenticated by anyone non-Mormon. Ploxhoi (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Holy anointing oil and cannabis. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And see and - he was lucky then he didn't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So the next step is for Til to drop an RFC on the talk page accusing his detractors of being a "faction" whose approach is "one-sided and antagonistic to NPOV". I submit that this is not the proper way to do these things. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are picking excerpts out of context and going over every word I breathe with a super fine tooth comb to find some reason for complaint. In describing the dispute, I made certain to write "TO ME THIS SEEMS one sided and antagonistic to NPOV." You have conveniently omitted the first four words to misleadingly make it appear as if I phrased the RFC non-neutrally rather than reporting both positions in the dispute as other rfcs do. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you would focus more on the vast number of academic sources you are merely thumbing your noses at or brushing off as unworthy, and stop trying to make it about me. Even if you could muzzle the editors who consider these sources and make those editors go away, it still wouldn't make the academic sources themselves go away. It would be kind of like sticking wikipedia's head in the sand on everyone else's behalf. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Til, I thought briefly about dragging "seems" along, but there's no getting past "faction". And even with the qualifiers that was hardly a neutral presentation of the conflict.

I've looked at those "academic" sources (and I note that GScholar does particularly poorly here and mostly pulls up non-academic works), and I'm unconvinced. I keep coming back to the same conclusions: Benet's paper is a poor authority, and the fact that it finds use almost entirely within the marihuana advocacy/history community shows its lack of traction for non-advocates. I'm willing to discuss some small degree of mention, but that mention needs to tell the truth that this is basically the idea of one person picked up by one group of people from outside the field. It's impossible to move forward on this when we have you ranting on about how anti-fringe we are and Ploxhoi telling us that the cannabis theory is obviously right. Both are huge time-wasters. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you going to do to me for using the word "faction", crucify me? I didn't know it was a word we weren't allowed to use, or that it was an offensive or pejorative term, I used it deliberately thinking to find the most neutral expression possible for the, um, can I say "party" or would that be over the top? of editors that is vehemently disputing with the academic sources in question. As for "basically the idea of one person" - yes sometimes there are situations where some author comes up with a kooky idea and is a lone voice, nobody else picks it up. Fringe might apply better to those situations. Here though, you have whole sections of academia picking it up if you look honestly, making it a veritable school of thought, at least equal in number to the sources insisting on "calamus", yet with all this school of thought, you are still trying to play the "fringe" card. The cannabis = keneh bosem is suggested in one French scholarly source I found from 1926, it is not Sula Benet's original either. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The word 'faction' means a small organised dissenting group within a larger group, so you are implying immediately that they are a minority. 'Some' would have done perfectly. And "Should all the academic sources hypothesizing that keneh bosm in Holy anointing oil refers to cannabis, be excluded as "FRINGE"?" is a loaded question. Since no one is likely to know every academic source making this claim (in all languages), the answer has to be 'no'. You need to mention specific sources. And you only mention 'fringe', ignoring the issue of WP:Weight. This isn't the way to frame an RfC and hopefully no one will try to answer a loaded question. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not know the word "faction" implied minority to you and don't know where you get that, it is not evident from eg. wikt:faction. I am comfortable with describing a situation as "two factions opposing each other" without intending any implications about their relative size, and I don't know who would take offense at the term. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you thought I said "fraction"? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Khabboos

N.B. This was originally posted at WP:AN, but since this is much more of an incident, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User Khabboos has continuously and knowingly violated and attempted to violate Wikipedias stance on neutral point of view and rule on editing originally on four pages (Talk:Karachi, Talk:Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush). He has already been warned by other editors that this is not allowed. Even though knowing this he continued to request to have mine and Inayity edits reverted on the Sindhi people page. Following his recent edits on the Hindu Kush (here and here) with his deliberate disruptive editing of a quote in a attempt to push his "agenda" I had personally come to inform him that he is severely risking being banned.

Despite being clearly informed of this, he completely ignored my message and want on his normal ways on the Sindhi people, Jayapala, and Hindu Kush pages. He would again violate NPOV on Hindu Kush, restoring his edit after being told its not allowed and again even after being told by 3 different editors that his edits are not neutral and unsourced. He also claims that the sources provided say "flee" instead of "migrated" but on the contrary both sources say "migrated".

Other disruptive edits include:

Claiming to have "found a good reference" for the Jayapala page even though none of his edits related to the source provided.

Using original research on the Hinduism in Pakistan page (here) which is also not allowed on Misplaced Pages.

Using original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). The references used are the same as the ones used on Hinduism in Pakistan.

Adding a reference to the Sindhi page (here) to citation a needed. Though he provided a source it does not mention the numbers given on the article. I have already and several times before have told him to make sure his edits are supported by the source he has given and to make sure the source he gives is relates to the citation needed.

Providing a "dead" "sourced" link to the Hinduism page (here); which called Hinduism "a way of life" which would also conflict with the fourth and fifth word in the first sentence of the first article which are "a religion". AcidSnow (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried WT:INB, or WP:DRN? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Noteswork, please do not give misleading advice on noticeboards - WT:INB is not an appropriate place to raise a contributor's behavioural issues, dispute resolution is only of use where there is an active discussion, and page protection is unlikely to solve a problem spread over multiple articles. I've not looked at the evidence in detail, but from Acidsnow's comments, it appears that admin action may be needed - in which case, this page is exactly the place to raise the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, editing your posts long after initial posting is confusing and unhelpful too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm new here, I have been taking advice from friends who are active here. They tell me that I can ask for a senior to tutor me, that I can write anything on the Talk page and it is counted only as a discussion, not an edit. I also asked questions at the Tea House. I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it. Please tell me how to proceed.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard of this, who said it? I have warned you before that you were risking being banned if you continued, yet you ignored my message and continued. Anyways, even if it was true it does not mean much. As for the talk pages I said "attempted" since you were warned that these break NPOV and were clearly showing "to be advocating your point of view".

*Sigh*, once again you have added original research on the Persecution of Hindus page (here and here). This also has been said by another user too (here and here). Why are you still doing this when me and other editors can see your edits? How many times must you be told to stop before you stop? AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that may be helpful. This is only for the Hindu Kush portion, which I happened to see at the teahouse (I don't know anything about the rest of the articles). Here is the teahouse thread, WP:Teahouse/Questions#https:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FHindu_Kush. Here is my request for some savvy folks to take a peek, if they could, User_talk:Drmies#Talk:Hindu_Kush. Here is the article-talkpage thread, Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Note that dispute over the "literal translation" sentences in mainspace (albeit not between AcidSnow and Khabboos I hope! :-) has been going on since 2005, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Miscellaneous. Khabboos claims to be getting information straight from the 1957 national geographic article, if I understand the article-talkpage conversation. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you asked a question at the Teahouse on January 27, but a review of that discussion does not show any such advice. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already asked him who said it and to come back to the ANI on his talk page, but he has yet to do so. Hopefully he stops ignoring it so we can end these types of edits. This user appears to have a serious problem with Islam (see his most recent talk page discussion). Not just those but he has also continued to lie about his references then post them all over Hinduism in Pakistan (here and here) and on the Umayyad Caliphate page (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc (the references say that). Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring all of my messages especially the edit summaries and the talk page I have left? None of the sources you provided support your POV. Are you simply Google searching books on the history of Pakistan without even reading them? As for the mob I have said this twice before it was a response to an alleged Quran desecration which you continued to ignore in your edits. It was not out of hate against Hindus but rather and attack out of anger. You have also ignored the questions previously asked you, but raised a question on what to do with my edits that have broken no rules. AcidSnow (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this as I am not an administrator, but this appears to be the only solution to deal/stop with this user. Following his countless POV edits, disruptive edits, use of original research, lies, ignoring messages when told to stop and to rejoin the discussion (see my other comments above) I have request to have this user to be blocked form editing on Misplaced Pages. AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong claim, and needs substantiation; please post specific diffs to show that the user has lied. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He has and very clear ones would when he said, "I was also told that if more than a week has passed after I posted something, I will not be blocked/banned for it." (he is referring to the Teahouse and I am not the only one that called him out on it). He has also claimed to "have found a good reference". AcidSnow (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You said that the user has lied.

Please can you show me where he has lied. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For the rule he stated, theres nothing at either Teahouse discussion that says anything like it (see here and here for each one). There's also no other discussion about it in his contribute history (had to make sure so I don't make false accusations). As for the "good reference", none of the edits he made are related to it, so he lied about that too. AcidSnow (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so, you're talking about Khabboos (talk · contribs), right? Got it.

Next, can you show some specific diffs that require admins? Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you mean by that and what you are? You know a lot about Misplaced Pages's policies and have made many edits so far in your first day. They range from articles edits to blocking discussion; these are not normal for a first time editor. Have you been a user before?

Anyways, I have already listed all the things he has done up above. This discussion needs administrator intervention since this user could careless what others say (has been warned countess times). I was also guided here by a helpful user. Another user who has also glanced at this section also see it as such. Since you appear to have missed the issues stated about this user please reread this discussion.

EDIT: It appears that you have been a user here before since you claim to have made "over 100,000 edits". But than again "everybody lies". AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', but you removed it, which means you did break the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. In the article on Sindhis, you removed the names of 2 Sindhis, stating that they were not Sindhis, but the surname, Vaswani (see http://www.surfindia.com/matrimonials/sindhi.html and Vaswani, J.P.'s, 'I Am a Sindhi: The Glorious Sindhi Heritage - The Culture & Folklore of Sind. New Delhi, India: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 129–135. 9788120738072.') is a truly Sindhi surname (your edit summary can be seen here), which is again a breaking of the rules, which is the beginning of an edit war. I therefore request the administartor/s to block AcidSnow instead of me.—Khabboos (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your going to try to block me for going against your NON NPOV? You do realize since you keep on failing to mention that it was an anger attack not a hate crime that you are once again pushing your POV (which you have been told countless times that it not allowed? This is not breaking a rules if I remove it since it misrepresents the source. Also its not an edit war if you revert it once (once again I have not broken any rule). Dispet knowing this you continue to readded it (here) I removed it because they are not sourced being Sindhi. You know many Turks have the name Yusuf which is an Arab name, but they are not Arab? So the use of the surname does not help.

You also added an unsourced comment to the Babri Mosque (here) about Pakistani Hindus which has nothing to do with the Mosque. This called Original Research, find a source next time (really, I still need to tell you this?). You also added another reference to Temples to the lead that have nothing to do with the mosque once again (here). AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you also tell us who told you the one week rule? You have already been asked twice, so you might as well as do it now. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My offline wikipedia friends told me that if an edit goes unchallenged for more than a week and it is backed up by references that say the same thing, it is acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Name? "unchallenged" and "backed up by references", odd, you did not say these before. Anyways this has nothing to do with the issues you have caused as they were challenged and not backed up. This also has been a continues problem too. AcidSnow (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear admins, In the article on Hinduism in Pakistan, I wrote that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005, with this as a reference - '"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 31 January 2014.', which said the same thing, but AcidSnow is continuously removing it, so please tell me what to do.—Khabboos (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are constantly saying this? I have given you 3 legitimate reasons why its not needed, yet you keep on asking for Admin assistance? You are wasting time.

You are now forumshoping: (request for medition, asking at ANI which you did more than once, making your own section at ANI, asking Smsarmad, and at the teahouse). AcidSnow (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Golden Prime

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

Golden Prime (talk · contribs)

Tiger versus lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A single-purpose account with a bee in his bonnet about our Tiger versus lion article. Already blocked twice since the 20th of January for edit-warring over the article, and is now doing exactly the same thing once more. Given the combination of dismally-poor skills in the English language, a complete inability to comprehend Misplaced Pages policy, and a habit of making personal attacks on anyone who points out problems (see this discussion at WP:RSN for the latest example), it seems to me that an indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:NOTHERE is a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly; there is no capacity for Golden Prime (talk · contribs) to add constructively to the project. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indef block. Major competence issues here. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support SPA indeed. Indef block. Noteswork (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 108.48.144.42

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

Hi all. I'm coming here instead of AIV because occasionally AIV doesn't act on these sorts of matters if there is too much detail, and I have too much detail. IP 108.48.144.42 has been persistently disruptive. User has been warned numerous times to not submit unsourced content, to adhere to a neutral point of view, and to avoid other disruptive behavior. User keeps blanking their talk page, ostensibly to avoid scrutiny, but they have been persistently disruptive since they began editing around September 2013.

In their edits yesterday, the user removed legitimate infobox templates and other date formatting, then introduced unsourced speculation as to the subject's cause of death, "either tuberculous or pneumonia". For this, and for their prior deleted warnings, I left a L4 Uw on the editors page, and pointed out that removing warnings from their talk page is considered proof that they have read the notices.

In the user's edit today, they removed a "circa (c.)" from the infobox with no explanation, then added a personal expression of "sadly dies", then claimed that Pocahontas died at the (unsourced) age of 22.

IP editor has previously been brought to the attention of AN/I, along with another possible sock IP (108.10.240.190), but it doesn't appear that anything was done about either. I respectfully request administrative intervention to prevent the IP from damaging articles further. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit dumbfounded on how this was overlooked, another editor had this to say January 3rd in addition: "108.48.144.42 is also one of several IPs being used to add unsourced ages for fictional characters in a range of youth media articles. The editor seems to have just started using 108.10.240.190." So not only is the Ip disruptive but it appears to be a hopper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am that other editor. While the random-ish unsourced ages seem to have stopped, they transformed into a series of rather odd POV edits with occasional removal of sources (example). Now the editor seems to be on a modifier kick. "Magical power" isn't enough, it must be "immense magical power" (to compare to other powers that are "almighty" or "historical" or, perhaps, "mighty and powerful". Hair is "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair" and why have a "slender body" when you can have a "slender, slim body"? There's also an assortment of unsourced material, trivia, guesswork

• EdJohnston has righteously and correctly warned: these edits are really disruptive. Though I also wonder what SummerPhD looks like with her long, ebony hair up in a bun. Or words to that effect. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC

Ed tu, Doc? (To be fair, most of my fans wonder the same thing, though my hair tends toward the shorter ivory variety anymore.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP seems to have brushed this off as looking at their edit history the IP has continued to make unexplained edits. While this is not always a bad thing it does raise a red flag on how they will not come here and reply to these complaints. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• My warning was, 'If you continue as before and won't explain your edits you may be blocked.' Since they removed the ANI warning, cleared their talk page and kept on going, including this unexplained removal of a reference, I've blocked for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay and thank you for your help in trying to solve things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe's categories

Forgive me for not knowing the correct page to request assistance for wikihounding. Ryulong is reverting all of my recent edits; I have informed Jimmie Wales that Category:Slave owner is valid. It is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages this wasn't already a category. They are also reverting my edits to terrorism; Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government is as valid as the one for the U.S. CensoredScribe (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(I have moved this entry from the top of the page to the bottom, where new threads should go - it is unlikely to be noticed at the top)

CensoredScribe, if you think a category is valid, argue the case for it properly. 'Informing Jimmie Wales' isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe has a history of creating categories that do not meet Misplaced Pages's standards, and in the past couple of days created and curated the following:

• Category:Slave owner (adding the first four American presidents to the category)
• Category:Terrorist
• Category:Individuals designated as terrorist by the United Kingdom government (only previously inhabited by Osama bin Ladin)
• Category:Fictional religious figures
• Category:Fictional headless
• Category:Fictional heartless
• Category:Fictional characters with ki abilities
• Category:Artificial souls in fiction
• Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls

He also saw fit to attempt to repopulate the long and repeatedly deleted category Category:Fictional terrorists. It seems that he decided to beat me to the punch about starting an ANI thread on him after I found out he tried to whine about me to Jimbo. What we need to do is prevent CensoredScribe from continuing to make bunk categories that are only populated based on his own personal interpretation of the work of fiction or history. How the hell is Optimus Prime a religious figure? Really.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also Category:Fictional multidimensionals? Category:Homonculi in fiction? All this? CensoredScribe, really. And based on the thread I found on his talk page started by SummerPhD that this is not the first time CensoredScribe has been brought to ANI and that I am not the first person to have to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to wait a bit on this, but I guess while we're here... Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#User:CensoredScribe_overcategorizing This has been an on-going problem. (Having not examined Ryulong's edits, I have no opinion on them specifically.) See also: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Inappropriate_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Brain_transplant_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Body_swapping_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Your_categories, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_characters_with_radiation_abilities, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Categories. As most of Censored's categories were "created" merely by populating them and deleted by depopulating, we don't have as many deletion discussions as we would otherwise. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inordinate need to run around cleaning up some frankly absurd categories. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I missed a couple: User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Alternative_reproduction_in_fiction, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Category:Fictional_sexists, User_talk:CensoredScribe#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Single-race_worlds. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now unpopulated Category:Synthetic biology in fiction and Category:Fictional soulless. These categories are all ridiculous. This all reminds me of Tyciol (talk · contribs), too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, in this edit to Jimbo's talk page, CensoredScribe claims he was blocked previously, when no blocks can be found on his account. This suggests that he is a sockpuppet of an editor we have previously banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Another relevant thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#CensoredScribe.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, it does seem that CensoredScribe misunderstands what Misplaced Pages is for: Category:Fictional headless - for "characters in fiction without heads"? Presumably including Thomas the Tank Engine, 'Thing' from the Addams Family TV series, and the sentient ocean in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris. Possibly usable as an addition to the existing classifications in Jorge Luis Borges' Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, but of precisely zero encyclopaedic merit. While I could imagine that there might be a case for the first two categories listed above, the rest appear to be junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try Levineps (talk · contribs): Levineps was blocked in December, and CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Levineps/Archive. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe was active as early as March 2013, though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And to repeat: "CensoredScribe (talk · contribs)'s sudden interest in creating oddball categories manifested itself in January". CensoredScribe category edits in 2013: zero (0).--Calton | Talk 07:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

People without hands is a category; religious figure should have been called fictional founders of religions and fictional subjects of prophecy. I admit that like alternative reproduction it is far too vague to be of use. Similarly sexist is too subjective; unlike the soul categories which are more akin to super powers; souls being more of a fictional physics issue than having anything to do with emotions like sexism. I think anyone who spent time looking for Osama Bin Laden would not contest he was considered a terrorist in the U.K. I think the U.S. terrorism category without a solid definition of terrorism is effectively a murder death killer list. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You created Category:Mythological rapists, Category:Fictional telekenetics, and Category:Artificial uterus in fiction. What purpose do these categories serve?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Note: second category speedy moved to Category:Fictional telekinetics due to spelling error. — Scott • talk 22:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am getting the sense from you that the main problem here was that he started categories about science fiction, and since science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre and interest, he should be banned from adding anything more about it. But I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the myths and stories of mankind, and I hope these categories flourish. It is difficult to populate any category fully, but I think these have a fair chance of becoming relatively complete. Wnt (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Seeing as Ryulong edits actively in the manga, anime, and video game spaces, it has nothing to do with whether science fiction is fundamentally worthless. Please do not assume such. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's some serious overcategorization, no doubt, but (I've said this before, perhaps in another ANI thread?) that's not to say that all are worthless. Mythological rapists is a viable and important category, as is Mythological rape victims. Did I see someone say "science fiction is a fundamentally worthless genre"? I don't like to invoke IDONTLIKEIT or use profanity, but what the fuck? Drmies (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That was just me getting high on the dramatic atmosphere of this place; my intent was to criticize the way in which someone is being treated as if they actually did something wrong based on no tangible criterion that I can see here. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. Come down from that cloud or my boss, an expert in science fiction, will egg your house--and he doesn't stop at $20,000. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a topic ban

I think, given what we've seen here, and given the comments in the last ANI thread , that there are quite sufficient grounds to make a formal proposal that CensoredScribe be topic-banned from creating new categories. It is totally untenable to allow such time-wasting behaviour to continue.

• Support as proposer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as none of the categories created by CensoredScribe have any purpose on Misplaced Pages whatsoever and he refuses to acknowledge his misdoings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is really becoming ridiculous. I also suggest that CS watch out for the boomerang (it's not often that you see an editor tell on himself). Erpert 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  I changed the section title as it was just my username and this was becoming more about him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, the categories CensoredScribe creates are ridiculous and the articles he populates those categories with hardly ever make sense. I would point out though, that his editing in other areas is sometimes equally problematic, so I'm not sure if this solves the problem or just moves it to another area.--Atlan (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as random, useless, bizarre categories have no place - they're meant to categorize by common traits. CS simply refuses to stop when asked nicely and as such, protection is required ES&L 09:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  CensoredScribe has run off crying to Drmies now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Take it easy, Ryulong. Everyone sometimes needs a shoulder to cry on. You may visit that happy place too, if you like. I think CensoredScribe is of good faith, though I also think they're out of their league in category creation. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well he tried Jimbo before you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  Seems like progress is being made. Snowolf 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - haven't got anything more to add than what people have already said, other than that this behaviour is utterly inappropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know how Misplaced Pages got to be a place where people feel afraid to start a category, but can go ahead and spam an infobox linking 200 songs to 200 other songs by the same author so that nobody can look up on Google what the two have in common because it's all a mass of false positives! There is nothing against policy about these categories - no reason why having them would harm the encyclopedia - just a few editors saying they're outlandish. Why can't you be happy enough crowing about how Misplaced Pages will never have a category about slave owners (which is a disgrace) without having to wreak vengeance on the guy who suggested the idea? Wnt (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy? "Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia". The creation of arbitrary and nonsensical categories is incompatible with the stated objectives of the project. And of course its harmful - readers don't expect to be confronted with nonsense in articles, and such material distracts from useful content. As for the 'slave owner' category, if you think it is merited, argue the case for it properly. Come to that, a topic ban as I proposed it wouldn't actually prevent CensoredScribe doing the same thing. Which is exactly the point I made when CensoredScribe first posted on Jimbo's talk page - whining about 'censorship' before you've even put forward a rational argument isn't the way to achieve anything.AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "slave owner" one is a potentially valid category. "Mythological rapists", however, is most certainly not, nor is "Artificial uterus in fiction" - the last one being utterly bizarre, and there are no logical reasons for it that I can think of (and very few illogical ones either). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Rape in mythology is a topic of serious scholarly research, as the most basic search of academic literature will show you. It stands to reason that a classification of mythological rapists could be encyclopedic. But you know what? This is a discussion that should be held at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion, where those with interest in and knowledge of the subject matter are more likely to see it, not here at WP:ANI where content disputes have no place. This goes for many of the other categories mentioned here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of the categories people are complaining about here seem quite sensible, at least at first glance. These are clearly content disputes and should have been taken to Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion, not depopulated and immediately speedy-deleted in violation of WP:CSD#C1. Category:Slave owner in particular was speedily deleted only a couple hours after being depopulated, making this at best administratorial negligence and at worst willful abuse of the tools. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• As above - what possible purpose could "Artificial uterus in fiction" serve? None whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're familiar with the literature (or lack thereof) on the subject, then I defer to your judgment on this particular point. (For all I know artificial uteruses are a common enough theme in science fiction that a category might be useful here.) However, given your comments upthread I suspect your (and others') opposition is grounded less in subject-matter knowledge than it is in some personal disdain for the topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That's ridiculous. What subject matter do people have a disdain for according to you? Fiction? Artificial uteri? Greek mythology? Sword fighters? That's a pretty disdainful person, that dislikes such a wide variety of subjects.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a bad idea to risk siccing a pack of hounds on good content, but we actually have an extensive section of Artificial_uterus#In_fiction. Now of course, CensoredScribe's mistake was that he tried adding such articles to a category. Had he merely created a navbox template with a link to this article section at top and each of the thirty articles linked at bottom, so that anybody on Bing trying to look more about the artificial womb in a Philip K. Dick novel would get tons of hits about Dune and Star Wars, well that would be the way things are done around here. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Rather than trying to tar me with the "he doesn't think the category is valid, therefore he hates the subject area", a little research would show that I voted to delete one of the other rape-related categories. Artificial uteruses don't justify an infobox or a category, so you need to stop trolling, Wnt. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not specifically say that you are biased. I suspect bias, but how can I tell? The problem is, when you make a statement that they don't "justify" a category -- what is that based on? Is there some verifiable source, some policy test, that clarifies that it is a bad choice, or is it personal opinion only? Because if you could point to such a criterion and tell people to use it, you'd have something a lot more effective than a purely arbitrary topic ban on one editor. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Xezbeth, the administrator who deleted Category:Slave owner agrees that it should not have been deleted under WP:CSD#C1; however, they since discovered that it is a minor rewording of a category which was already legitimately deleted via CfD. Still I think we should take it on good faith that CensoredScribe, like Xezbeth, was unaware of this previous discussion before creating the category. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  That didn't stop him from trying to populate Category:Fictional terrorists after being told multiple times that he was cherry picking, and that the category has been deleted multiple times.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, deleted multiple times. To precise, a total of three votes for deletion at , which have been used to justify deleting the category three times. So there are as many people who saw fit to start the category on their own initiative as ever voted to delete it! I recognize that Category:terrorists may be problematic on account of partisan differences, BLP, etc., but fictional terrorists usually come with a clear label. Wnt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. The Shredder, Lex Luthor, Doctor Robotnik, and Sylar from Heroes don't seem to have much in common nor have they ever been explicitly called terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

These are per-article content decisions: add that article to the category or not. They shouldn't be made by having someone barely think about it and say, oh, it would be hard. I bet that if they are terrorists, the die-hard fans who frequent such articles could rattle off chapter and verse where there was an APB out on them for it. In any case, trying to add things to this category is in no way "bad behavior", it is just a content decision he made differently from you. It isn't right to say that you disagreed with somebody ten times, so you can block him. Either have a clear policy you can say he broke and which people making categories need to learn and be able to apply on their own, or else just accept he disagrees with you. Wnt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Did he make these edits in good faith? Yes. Is he breaking things more than he's fixing them? Yes. Can we solve this by topic banning him from creating categories (without some sort of vetting service or someone to consult and ask "do you think this sounds like a good category idea? here are some pages I think will fit")? Yes. I don't see any loss here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How does he go from edits in good faith to topic ban? How does he go from making edits you disagree with to "breaking" things? You seem to be implying that his editing on the point was hopelessly incompetent, yet I see no objective standard to support anything but that he had one opinion and you had another. I see no advice I could give for editors to become more "competent" at adding categories except to "do whatever ryulong says, and try to guess what he doesn't like, and preferably, never touch a category at all for any reason whatsoever." Wnt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one is saying they are editing in bad faith, this seems to be entirely about competence. How to be more competent? They need to stop with the WP:SYN. A (the Emperor had "slaves") + B (Darth Vader killed the Emperor) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional abolitionist). A (Darth Vader used a Light Saber) + B (a Light Saber is kinda like a sword) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional swordsman). A (something like a religious "prophecy" in the prequals said a figure would balance the Force) + B (Darth Vader was maybe sorta kinda that figure) = C (Darth Vader is a fictional religious figure). There are plenty more in that one article. There are plenty of similar stories in other articles. It's clearly been a problem and will clearly continue to be one as they show no sign of stopping. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, all the categories involve some amount of SYN, even something as simple as "American abolitionist", because a source may not use those two words in a row. There are indeed huge problems with POV controversies, like the people who for a while had Islamophobia as a variety of Racism, at least on Commons. And even though Anakin Skywalker did say "I had a dream I was a Jedi. I came back and freed all the slaves...", listing him as an abolitionist is still pretty questionable. The thing is, I don't see why the "questioning" has to amount to a ban, rather than simply a contrary edit. I doubt the categories can live up to the same standard as other encyclopedic content, nor do they. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support There's no reason to create utterly useless and nonsensical categories for us to waste time cleaning up. Time for CS to start doing something more constructive. Weak oppose Changed to weak oppose per not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of the categories are bogus, no question, but some are borderline and a number of them seem perfectly valid to me. I also agree with the point that this is first and foremost essentially a content dispute that should be handled via Categories for Deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Without going on at great length, I find at least some of the categories to be creative and useful and I think the others should be handled through CfD rather than mass revert. In particular, I found myself defending "Fictional religious figures" (though I think needs clarification, perhaps "Figures in fictional religions"?) to Ryūlóng at Yoda before they mentioned this discussion to me. Dwpaul 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and instruct the editor that since there is an opposition to their activities, they must read carefully the rules about category creation and discuss with other wikipedians the proposed categories. Also (I didn't check myself) we probably have to clarify our rules about "fictional" categories. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support This editor has had plenty of opportunity to read the relevant policies but instead of trying to understand the policies they are now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for more inappropriate cats in threads like this one Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Entertainment#Categories about amputations and souls. There are so many ways to edit productively around here that a ban regarding cats may let CS become a better editor in the long run. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, since this editor's activity is a timesink; reviving the SPI may not be a bad idea either. Miniapolis 22:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Drmies that there doesn't seem to be any bad faith on CensoredScribe's part, but also that he really doesn't seem to understand why what he's doing is disruptive. I'd say that there is a CIR problem here, and would suggest that he be given an "out" from the topic ban if he is taken on by a mentor well-versed in the intricacies of categories. That is, put the topic ban in place, with the standard 3 or 6 month time period, but allow him to petition for early release from the ban if he's found a mentor to tutor him. BMK (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm glad someone finally mentioned that wikipedia has a page called categories for discussion; which during the last thread no one ever brought up. I kept wondering what that page was called. Googling categories for creation or category proposals does not bring up the right page, you have to use the word discussion. Thank you for directing me to the correct page to propose categories Psychonaut. I do not contest a block from editing fiction, wikipedia is not a place to rant about how bad the star wars prequels were on multiple levels; though most of the categories I added to starwars are still up there because they were correct. However I will oppose a block to any other topic; including mythology where I have contributed lasting well referenced material of use to others. Most of the worthlessly vague, obscure and subjective categories like fictional sexists alternative reproduction in fiction and single race planets I depopulated myself once I realized how few examples there were. Artificial reproduction in fiction became two definable categories however, artificial uterus and homonculi in fiction. I do suspect that half these categories involving souls is the reason such a fuss is being made; I have probably qualified for the goth cup preliminaries by now. The creation of Category:Slave owners being opposed strikes me as extremely disturbing, it's probably because it will be the single largest category on Misplaced Pages if made; given how recently slavery was made illegal. People considered terrorists by the UK government is as valid as the category for U.S. terrorists; by which I mean they are both worthless categories. Terrorist is as subjective as sexist; those terms describe emotions not actions. The category terrorist would have terrorists by country as a subcategory; otherwise Osama Bin Laden is going to be listed as being two dozen different categories of terrorists for each country that considered him as such. As the page Definitions of terrorism says, "There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term terrorism." That terrorism requires an extra page just for definitions should be the proof of how poorly thought out, extra legal and unencyclopedic the concept is. Misplaced Pages would not start listing people as thought criminals or murder death killers if that was the term being used in the media; because that's dumb; like the word terrorism. What other pages actually do this? It's even worse than the pages titled blank controversy. CensoredScribe (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Comment This guy strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am wondering whether anyone tried to discuss the issue with him before hitting with a sledgehammer? If yes, them why it is not mentioned here? If not, then someone needs a good slapping by a wet trout for not following the dispute resolution guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  Did you see that there are several threads on his talk page on this subject, to which he did not respond? BMK (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  There was also a previous AN/I thread he was notified of, but did not participate in . BMK (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion says the page is only for deletion, merging, and renaming it does not mention proposing new categories. Ryulong said oppose twice, also I did not say John Adams was a slave owner because he never was; he opposed slavery. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And then there's this. While this discussion is on-going, we have a new category with one member. The category might make sense. However, the one entry does not, unless a "Mudokon" freeing other Mudokons can be said to be part of the movement to end the treatment of people as property. (Yes, I'm risking my creds to say that Mudokons are not people.) Heck, maybe we should add him as a fictional animal rights activist? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the plus side, at least he's discussing this one first. SMH - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per MarnetteD and others. Previous warnings seem to have failed, and there were some rather odd categories created by CS. APerson (talk!) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support a topic ban or mandatory adoption (not it). Continuing to add WP:SYN categories while this discussion is on-going seals it for me. They simply do not see what the problem is. As a result, there is simply no way to not expect this to be an on-going problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless Drmies' suggestion below gains traction. I wasn't paying any attention to this until I discovered the creation of Category:Mythological abolitionists with the editor adding this to Moses using the edit summary "Super best friends :0". Now at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 1. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd like to see some data on this concept that a ban will make some a better editor; it's seems more likely to me that a ban is likely to make someone a non-contributor. NE Ent 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would you think that the purpose of a ban is to "make someone a better editor"? The purpose of a ban is to stop disruptive editing. Sure, it may, perhaps, have the secondary effect of making the banned editor think about their behavior, so that when the ban is lifted they're more apt to edit productively and harmoniously, but that's not the primary purpose. We don't get to the point of discussing a ban until disruption has continued despite efforts to halt it short of banning. Recall, please, that WP:Misplaced Pages is not therapy.

    In any case, if it's improvement of the editor that's wanted, either Drmies' proposal below, or my suggestion of linking the lifting of the ban to mandatory mentoring heads in that direction - but the primary purpose of both is to stop the disruption inherent in the editor's behavior. BMK (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't find the argument for a topic ban convincing. He created one WP:POINTY category, but several others which look plausible to some people. If he does something obviously pointy again, he will probably be blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Some of the launched topics are stupid, others like "Slaveholder" unquestionably encyclopedic and "Terrorist(s)" at least highly arguable and very likely encyclopedic. No evidence of ill intent towards WP; certainly nothing to merit a topic ban. Carrite (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. User seems intent on categorising WP to his own (mostly) bizarre rationales & needs to desist. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The user's inability to pause and review the utility and application of a new category before creating it has become disruptive to the community due to the volume, if nothing else, and needs to be managed if they cannot do it for themselves. I had assumed good faith on the user's part until I read this . Clearly CensoredScribe is aware of what they have been doing regarding edit summaries; using them to either mislead other users regarding the contents of their edits or as a platform to justify those edits instead of engaging in debate on the relevant talk page. They are now attempting to use the promise of ceasing their abuse of edit summaries as a bargaining chip to obtain a lesser sanction than a topic ban. This does not instill confidence that they are approaching these discussions in an open way. Bowdenford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A different tack

Preface: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion has been pointed at as a venue for discussion. Perhaps there's a better one, I don't know--certainly there's a better place than my talk page. Following some discussion on my talk page, "Administrators Noticeboard Incidents", and my questions about CensoredScribe's Category:Slave owners (where they, by the way, indicated they wish to continue their work), and considering that many editors here think that CS is of good faith and their contributions (possibly) valuable:

• CensoredScribe is limited to creating categories that have met with consensus, at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion or another appropriate venue, be it a Project talk page or ____ (fill in the blank).

In other words, prior approval is the name of the game, a restriction that will of necessity limit their work and thereby the disruption caused by creating all-too many categories (analogous with the injunctions we've placed on individual editors regarding mass-deletion nominations). That the mass creation is disruptive is agreed on by many editors, it seems to me, and limiting CensoredScribe in this way could forestall a topic ban, which many editors seem to agree is too draconian. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer this although I've voted for the topic ban as well, hope that's not too contradictory. But we really can't have silly categories such as Category:Mythological abolitionists and almost insulting edit summaries such as "Super best friends :0". Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support this as well. It's essentially the same as the topic ban; they can't create a category without people agreeing that it is valid first. The only difference is that this allows them to create the category themselves, and not have to get someone else to do it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support That sounds quite fair. I'll stop abusing the edit summary as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Like Dougweller, I support this option as well as another way of curbing this behavior, but my support is contingent on the findings of the SPI. If it is determined that CS is Levineps, then my support for this option, as well as my suggestion for a mentoring "out" made above, are withdrawn. If an admin or the SPI should determine that Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe socking, same deal, whether or not the puppermaster is Levineps. BMK (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Barring solid proof, the Lewineps accusation seems unreasonable - aside from being someone else in hot water over categories, I see no similarity in the edits I looked at. Lewineps was splitting and combining other people's categories, stepping on some toes in the process. CensoredScribe by contrast seems genuinely interested in creating a useful classification of prominent themes in mythology and fiction that can be used as a sort of thesaurus by authors and humanities researchers looking for inspiration. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that it needs to be noted that, in spite of Censorscibe supporting this proposal, the editor made no attempt to discuss C posted at CFD and five minutes later (before any response could be made) created this Category:Teleportation in fiction. I can find no prior approval for this cat and, as it is a day after the editor agreed to these restrictions it is getting harder to AGF. If C can't follow the restrictions that C agreed to then I would suggest that the topic ban proposal above may be the only thing that will correct this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not think this would be a contested category as there was already a page teleportation in fiction. I have brought the discussion up at categories for discussion. I did not think DC and Marvel comics wizards would be contested as the counterpart to witches. Nor did I think that fictional zoos would be questioned given it has a clear definition and alien zoos was an accepted category that I created. I will propose all categories at the categories for discussion page; not just the more outlandish ones. I also think fictional gladiators and bio terrorists should be categories that should include alien arena fighters. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As shown here Special:Contributions/CensoredScribe you posted at CFD and 5 minutes later you created the cat. There was no prior approval which is the restriction that you aupported. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF just because an article exists does not mean that a category should be created. More than one editor has pointed out that you continually ignore WP:OR and WP:SYNTH both in the creation of cats and in placing said cats in wikiP's article. I can only agree with Ryulong's assessment regarding your judgement. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Many of the categories have been quite bad, but a couple have actually been useful. For instance, Category:Nanotechnology in fiction is a solid category, that could be easily populated without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I therefore agree that pre-clearing categories is preferable to an outright topic ban. Monty₈₄₅ 23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Clarification required - CensoredScribe, to assist with considering if the suggested course of action would be appropriate to the situation, based upon you comments above please clarify the following:
  

1. Are you saying that unless there is agreement to your creation of categories being limited only to those that meet with consensus (as opposed to a topic ban) you will continue to abuse edit summaries?

2. Would the type of categories which you would be asking users to spend their time considering in an attempt to build consensus include such things as "alien arena fighters" and similar? Bowdenford (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I've already complained about the Starwars prequels, other franchises have weak entries; however I only made particular note of Starwars. I would not abuse the comments section to say that instead of four next generation movies it should have been 2 Deep Space Nine and Voyager films because the story of TNG was finished after 7 seasons. Nor would I be mentioning Alien 3's many other scripts. CensoredScribe (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New account?

Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) appeared in my watchlist today, having created several new categories and adding them to several pages. Examples include Category:Fictional characters with photographic reflexes, Category:Fictional gladiators, and Category:Fictional bio-terrorists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That does seem suspicious. There's some overlap in the category interests, and both accounts occasionally forget to pluralize (cf. Category:Slave owner and Category:Fictional botanist). From recent messages on CensoredScribe's talk page we can see that they're aware that sockpuppetry is prohibited, so if Tranquility of Soul is theirs then they can't plead good-faith ignorance. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

An SPI report is here. More evidence would be useful. BMK (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not tranquility of soul, though I can understand why you might think that. We have similarly unique names, forget to add an s, and create unique categories for fictional characters like fictional gladiators and fictional bio terrorists. If it had been me though after botanist would have come other academic disciplines, such as Category:Fictional translator for Uhura, Hoshi Sato, C3PO and HK-47 for example. However I don't believe tranquility of soul has made any edits to science or mythology have they; I didn't even edit fiction until recently. Also the first botanist I would have added would have been Poison Ivy (comics), like how she was one of the first people I added as an eco-terrorist. I would have listed wonder Superman, Mongul, Red Sonja, Wonder Woman, Mojo (comics), Samurai Jack, and Beta Ray Bill as gladiators as well because of war world and bills appearance in planet hulk. I also would have tried to get Darth Vader Obi-Wan, and Padme listed as gladiators because of the arena scene in episode II is clearly only in there because of Ridley Scotts Gladiator like Mr. Plinket says. Also I would have said in the inappropriate edit summary that Coroscaunt was L.A. from Blade Runner without Harrison Ford or interesting architecture. At that point I would have complained in the edit summary and suggested in a reboot Anakin was just a Luke aged gladiator when they first meet him; because a chariot race with pod racers would have made more sense than pod racing or an arena on there own. Probably add Ashoka as a slave Anakin meets, set the scene on Tattooine to make it look similar but not too much like Jabbas palace; and to quickly get that plot moving within the span of three films that have to work on their own and not as parasites. In addition I would have added a sub category to fictional gladiators for Soul Calibur characters who are all gladiators in the story mode. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't actually help your case such that you shouldn't make categories like these.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe hasn't stopped

I just saw that he made Category:Teleportation in fiction and Category:Nanotechnology in fiction and he had populating several dozen pages in it that I'm currently in the process of removing. He has clearly not gotten the message from this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted on the categories for discussion page about this. I went through a list on this page Teleportation in fiction, this is a very common theme. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are under discussion here and you continue to create categories that fall under this discussion. You have been told to stop but you continue. Do you not see a problem here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It seemed to me most people thought I was doing an alright job. I didn't think teleportation and zoos would be contested as I didn't make up any new extra vague words like soul absorbing terrorist synthetic biological gangster multidimensional. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole thread concerns the fact that your judgement on these matters cannot be trusted. Not only that, but your judgement when it comes to pre-existing categories is questionable. You've added characters to categories based on single instances in their long history of being labeled something. Superman's a slave because of something that happens in a short storyline. You make a bunch of characters labeled "Fictional war veterans" because they are fictional characters involved in fictional wars. Frankly, all this is showing is that you should be banned from anything to do with categories whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see a problem -- Ryulong is being way too aggressive to an editor trying to contribute in a manner that is, at worst, harmless. Teleportation in fiction .. Star Trek, of course. One of the attractive young witches in Charmed -- probably some comic book characters? And that's just off the top of my head. Since we've had Category:Dungeons & Dragons character classes since 2006 (I know, i know, other stuff exists...) it's hard to see the real problem. NE Ent 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, please stop tagging CensoredScribe's categories for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#C1. As has already been explained in this thread, that criterion does not apply since the categories have not been empty for four days. Nor is there any precedent for depopulating or deleting categories simply because the creator has violated some self-imposed topic ban. Your actions are coming across as very vindictive. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How are they vindictive? He's being told to stop multiple times and he's not stopping. And you were the only one to bring up the CSD issue. No one else seems to note that. And two of the categories I tagged were never populated to start with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor at Open Europe

I've been trying to make some changes to article Open Europe. However, another editor, who I'm quite convinced has been using a number of accounts, and possibly IP addresses: (Doug4EU2010; Baskaville; Gallego2012; Berliner1970; Gerald1000; CharlieG2000; EUcurrentaffairs; Sullivan241; Barossoisacooldude) has been unwilling to discuss and reflexively reverts changes. (There are a few more accounts, but those are the main ones. They all are new accounts, that edit exclusively on Open Europe, and have exactly the same style and viewpoint.) I think also a series of IP addresses starting with 93.186, but I'm not sure. I don't have a problem particularly with the multiple accounts, although it does make it hard to communicate, and be sure that the counterpart has heard.

The problem is that we've had disagreements about wording, and I've tried to engage in talk, multiple times (for example:, , ) , but the editor refuses to engage and simply reverts my edits(, , , for example).

Bascally it boils down to the past few days, I've tried to assume good faith, post messages on talk and wait for engagement. Nothing forthcoming, I edit the article, and it is then immediately reverted with no further discussion. I'm not sure what can be done, but some sort of semi-protection + warning to one of users would seem suitable now. Thanks for any advice or help you can offer. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Baskaville edited my user page and added personal details without permission: , so although they stopped when I asked, their commitment to civil, on topic discourse is rather in doubt. Nonetheless I have tried to assume good faith. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

<not a mod> The actions of IP's and User:Baskaville on Peregrine981's userpage strongly suggest WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the IPs. I'll leave discussion of the account to others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Baskaville (talk · contribs), Chris19231 (talk · contribs), Gallego2012 (talk · contribs), Berliner1970 (talk · contribs), CharlieG2000 (talk · contribs), WolfgangS451 (talk · contribs), EUcurrentaffairs (talk · contribs), Sullivan241 (talk · contribs), Ayresmith (talk · contribs), Gasmonitor (talk · contribs) and Barossoisacooldude (talk · contribs) for using multiple accounts to exert influence over Open Europe. Doug4EU2010 and Gerald1000 were not checked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-star

Wiki-star (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was originally blocked in July 2006. Since then, he has been harassing Zarbon by stalking him with multiple accounts, not only on the English Misplaced Pages but on the English Wikiquote, and in the past couple of months he has decided I am his new target, as is Kalki, when he began editing as Dragonron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In 2008, Zarbon created this list based on his experience with Wiki-star on both en.wp and en.wq. The history of his talk page locally and at Wikiquote is full of sockpuppet accounts and IPs that very obviously are him sending taunting messages to Zarbon.

In his actions towards me, he constantly informs users who I appear to be arguing with that I am not to be trusted (, , , ) and blindly reverts edits I have made (, ). And then there are just taunts he makes towards editors he is in disputes with (, ).

Due to the fact that this abuse has been going on for 8 years and he certainly shows no signs of stopping (I've attempted to contact his most recent ISP, but I've been informed that as it is a mobile internet service there may be no action taken), and no one in their right mind would even contemplate unblocking him, can we formally consider him banned such that any edits he makes can be reverted on sight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has anything been opened at WP:SPI about this? Erpert 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been old checkusers done as well as a few recent SPI cases with his recent incarnation but it was only today that I found the connection between old and new accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

and what makes u think Dragonball1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not behind the recient attacks?! OR maybe Zarbon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) himself is doing this for all the attention?! One things for sure, Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) isnt the one responsible! Not, Recoome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) either — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkRave728 (talk • contribs)

New account Jesus! Im famous! posted at User talk:Zarbon trying to impersonate Kalki. Looks like more socking related to this thread. Ishdarian 10:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's something! highly doubt the troll-impersonator is related to this case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Well, that's something! (talk • contribs) 10:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's now disrupting this discussion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He also continues to harass X96lee15 but he will not allow his user talk page to be semiprotected, or apparently allow me to edit it, even if it's just a null edit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock RangeRoverOver (talk · contribs) blocked. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Still have issues with X96lee15 restoring content by this user against the tenets of WP:BAN, and he still demands that his user talk not be protected despite the fact that the only activity it's gotten is because of Wiki-star/Dragonron and his socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk page protection

I have twice gone to WP:RFPP to request that X96lee15's user talk page be semi-protected because Wiki-star's socks keep going back to it and he has refused to allow anyone to remove posts from his user talk page. Both times I've made this request, he has gone to RFPP to ask me to withdraw the request, and an uninvolved editor has made a comment saying that regardless of the fact that I am the one being harassed by the sockpuppets, I have no right in requesting that another user's talk page be protected to prevent further disruption by a banned user. The first request was closed because there was not enough activity. The second time around it was closed because "policy to be examined". It's clear that Wiki-star has been de facto banned because he's been blocked since 2006 and no one in their right mind would perform an unblock. Now why is this protection so contentious?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please name me as the "uninvolved editor", because I think I have a right to voice exactly why I'm making those statements. You've also misquoted me slightly, but crucially; my comment has been that you have no right to request the protection when it is evident said user does not want it. Recently, I can see that they have been moderating their talkpage, and reasonably well. It is exactly this response to the trolling that is what keeps this IP hopper coming back to attack you. The easiest thing to do is to take X96Lee15's talk page off your watch list, particularly as they've stated they want nothing more to do with you at the moment. Do that, and simply follow WP:DENY by ignoring any comments the IP makes; if they start coming to your talk page, or resume interfering with any of your edits, then you have a case for protecting those areas. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  If I'm the one being attacked why do I not have a say in what happens on the user talk page of someone who has had no activity on his talk page in the past month except due to this guy? And it's not IPs. It's sockpuppet accounts. I'm not allowed to request protection? I'm not allowed to remove the content per WP:BAN? He should be allowed to make a special archive just for the three comments that I have voiced my opinion on how they should not be kept? It's nonsense. The best way to apply WP:DENY is to prevent him from doing what he's been doing and that's editing the user talks of X96lee15 and Zarbon. It should not matter if one of them does not want their talk page semi-protected. It should be done to prevent disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is really pointless, as even if we did protect the page, per protection policy, we would then create an unprotected subpage so that IP editors could still contact the editor... User talk page protection is to be used only for severe vandalism, and for short durations, and its clear that your not looking for a short duration protection. If this was an editor requesting protection of their own talk page, perhaps an admin would be willing to stretch the rule a bit to do a somewhat long protection, but I don't see that happening over the objection of the editor. Perhaps someone could craft an edit filter for you? Monty₈₄₅ 19:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Chovgan

I tried to make an edit at Chovgan and was reverted by Az-507. I requested on the article talk page that he discuss the matter with me, Talk:Chovgan#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on his user talk page. He made one answer to me in poor English which didn't make any sense and was unsourced. I answered him back, but he did not write back to me after that. When I hadn't heard from him in some days, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in many days, I tried the edit again and he reverted me again, still without discussing about it. Basically all his edits have been reverting other people in different articles. I know that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing?" --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Slow motion revert warring is still revert warring. Furthermore, their lack of communication and poor english suggest a severe lack of competence to be editing here. Blackmane (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

99.41.173.202 - almost all edits refer to editor's own book of interpretations (not facts)

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

I started a discussion about this at WP:NOR, where it was suggested that I should bring it up here. This is what I wrote there:

It appears that almost every edit made by user 99.41.173.202 (https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/99.41.173.202) are references to (or excerpts or summaries from) his own self-published book, which contains his own interpretations of poems. (Either this user is referring to his own book, or the user is interested only in adding citations and summaries from that one book.) In spirit, if not in the letter, these edits seem to be in violation of multiple policies; instead of original research, the editor cites his own interpretations (not facts) from his own book, which comes to the same thing. Could an administrator possibly look into this? Thank you.

Further detail: this user reverted an edit in which I removed a citation to his self-published book. I don't want to start an edit war, so I hope an admin might decide on what to do next.

Just to clarify: what this user has done is add his own interpretations to pages about poems and other literature. The citations for his interpretations are his own book, published by a vanity press (a press that publishes books that the author pays to get published, but which are not subject to peer review), and not noticed or referred to, as far as I can tell, by anyone else. Should these personal interpretations stay in WP? (EDIT: If this doesn't belong here, please say so, and I'll delete the whole section.) - Macspaunday (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This was previously at WP:NORN#99.41.173.202 - almost all edits refer to editor's own book of interpretations (not facts). Since the IP has been warned and has made no further edits since 20 January I don't see the need for immediate action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let me just state for the record that the title of this section is inaccurate. It should read something like "editor cites unreliable source" or something like that. Literary scholarship is frequently cited to "own interpretations (not facts)" because that's how we roll. It just so happens that this persons interpretations are published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" which, despite its name, is basically a kind of gay for pay outfit. No, that's not what I meant--vanity, that's it. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, this is still all over the place. I just removed it from Ode on a Grecian Urn (Ottava Rima would roll over in his grave if he saw it) and from Adonaïs, and am now cleaning up Frost at Midnight. Word to the wise: you don't touch Frost at Midnight, or I'll sick the secret ministry on you. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And Thomas Hardy, Easter 1916, In Memoriam A.H.H., The Countess Cathleen, Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came, A slumber did my spirit seal, and The Tyger. Note also the puzzling contributions of PolicyPlease (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Talking about Cambridge Scholars Publishing: I see a whopping 500 hits on wikipedia. You say it is a vanity publisher. (a) Can we have a wikipedia article which says about this (since it is widely cited in wikipedia it must be reasonably notable VaPu) and (b) Shall we do some cleansing beyond your 99.41... IP? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weeeeell maybe I should put that less strongly, or I'd need a lawyer, maybe. AFAIK the outfit is not widely accepted as a reliable, notable academic press. That goes basically for every publisher that asks you to submit your dissertation, and I've confirmed this with my direct colleagues. I wonder if Randykitty and DGG has more insight to offer. Now, in this case, it's not just that--it's also that the addition were terrifically verbose and typically not encyclopedic in style, to put it briefly. Bad writing, and one of the articles was a GA. And then, it's pretty obvious that this was self-promotion, so plenty of reasons to remove this.

    The word to the wise is of course that it's possible that a book published by CSP is relevant and reliable, but that would have to be decided individually, in a way that with an OUP book you wouldn't have to. In this case, though, with an unknown book that claims to have made huge discoveries (see the Hardy addition) about such a wide range of poems--yeah, no. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    • They claim on their website:

      We publish around 500 new academic titles a year and have produced numerous editions of collected works of literary figures, including a 56 volume set of the works of Conan-Doyle and a 53 volume set of the works of Anthony Trollope.

      We are proud to be able to claim the contributions to our publications of such figures as HRH The Prince of Wales (The Venice Charter, ISBN 1847186882 and New Architecture and Urbanism, ISBN 1443818698), Former US President Jimmy Carter (Nuclear Proliferation and the Dilemma of Peace, ISBN 1443819174), and the scholar and novelist Umberto Eco (Joyce in Progress, ISBN 1-4438-1235-8).

      The Conan-Doyle and Trollope I assume are public domain.

      500 new title a year seems like awful lot of books - I'm assuming that they're one of these outfits that only prints a title when they get an order for it, so many of their "published" titles could well be published in only a theoretical sense. BMK (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

      • The comments here say that CSP doesn't proof-read, and is a print-on-demand operation. That's not necessarily damning, given the small market for academic books, but they don't seem to be at all selective about wqhat they print, so, as Drmies says, each book would have to be evaluated on its merits and on the qualifications of the author, as the publisher is apparently no gaurantee of quality. BMK (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• The publisher is not hopelessly bad, (and the discussion above confirms my view that we should have articles on all publishers that give the information so people reading WP can judge for themselves). Every publisher has a range of quality: their average seems pretty low, but it doesn't necessarily make any particular book not a RS. They have several interesting niches: really obscure 19th century works by major authors (they have Arthur Conan Doyle's almost unknown travel writings, for example), areas with very small potential interest; they also have many collections of someone's essays, & some pretty weird idiosyncratic books that I cannot imagine anyone publishing unless they got paid for it. But much of humanities publishing these days, even from the best publishers, is subsidized in some manner. As a guide to where they stand, some of the comments seem to equate them with Mellen, but I think Mellen is on the whole a little better, and they don't have Mellesources n's emphasis of the more obscure classical subjects. I would not automatically reject them, but they don't have the same implied authority as OUP and Princeton UP. As another guide, about 1/10 of their books have library holdings in the low hundreds; most have fewer than 100; this will of course be field-dependent, and the more popular third-world studies tend to have the higher numbers. They do often but not always get reviewed. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really familiar with this outfit, but looking at their website I agree with DGG. They are quite upfront about not being connected to Cambridge University or CUP, a bogus outfit would try to ride those coattails. They don't look like a vanity publisher to me (they don't mention authors having to pay, they do mention them paying royalties to authors) and they claim they peer-review proposals (but there is no indication how stringent this is). I'd take it case by case; If a book they published got decent reviews by reliable I'd use it as a reliable source. Without reviews, I'd be a bit more careful, but I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• My colleague confirms having seen/heard about representatives going around the conferences soliciting session papers, unseen and unheard, for publication. I've heard enough incidental reports like that to have serious doubts about the outfit. "Vanity"--maybe not according to the technical definition, but uncritical acceptance, sure. We used to get flyers sent to us that were quite unclear about their lack of association with Cambridge U; that was a few years ago, and they may have adjust that particular marketing policy. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bidhan Singh fourth time adding the same content to Mass media. Hasn't shown an inclination to communicate.

Bidhan Singh has four times introduced nearly identical content to the mass media article, raising numerous problems e.g. changing the first sentence from:

"The mass media are diversified media technologies that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication."

to

"The mass media are media process that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication. Public speaking and public event r forms of mass media expression ."

Most recently introducing a source that says almost nothing to produce

"The mass media are media process that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication.Public speaking and public event can also be considered as forms of mass media The process through which this communication takes place varies <ref>http://www.government.nl/issues/media-and-broadcasting/the-government-and-media/media-act-and-media-policy</ref> ." (nowikis added for the purpose of ANI, of course)

There's no 3RR issue here, but the user has not used the talk page, not responded on his user talk page, and has not used edit summaries.

• 1/9/14 - first
  • I revert: "Reverted 8 edits by Bidhan Singh: Changes appreciated, but they introduce several issues with accuracy, grammar, and WP:MOS. maybe we can talk on the talk page to figure out the best way to update this?"
• 1/18/14 - second
  • I revert: "Reverted 11 edits by Bidhan Singh (talk): Removing these changes again -- major change to meaning of lead without citing sources or explaining (use talk page please)"
• 1/21/14 - third
  • third revert
  • left a message on user talk

--— Rhododendrites |  03:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Update/disclosure: After noticing similarly problematic edits on the article for Media, I looked through the user's contrib history and found many of them on diverse articles significantly damage the content, introducing factual errors, changing meaning without consensus, or introducing intelligibility-breaking grammatical issues. I undid a couple more, but I'll stop now as I don't know what would be considered hounding in this regard. --— Rhododendrites |  03:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• What Rhododendrites says. Edits are poor, made without talk page discussion, improperly sourced. The talk page suggests that there is a measure of incompetence here. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• See also this series, reverted by Ponyo. I looked at three articles they edited, and found the same problems in each. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. The fact that the edits in some cases appeared minor but altered the context to the point of making the article factually incorrect is very concerning. These types of minor edits are often missed in vandalism patrols and watchlists and have a real chance of remaining in the article for a lengthy period. Combined with the editor's complete lack of communication or acknowledgement of the valid and continuing concerns raised by others I believe that a block is pretty much the only option to prevent further disruption. Please feel free to unblock if there is any indication that Bidhan Singh is ready to address the issues raised (I will not be online much as I will be taking great pleasure in watching the Seahawks popping corks and making it rain when they win tomorrow).--Jezebel'sPonyo 18:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING by User:Jeremymr

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

User:Jeremymr is engaging in WP:OUTING with <edit link redacted for privacy -- available in edit history>. Would an admin be able to deal with it, please? StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

email an oversighter ASAP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -- but why tell someone else to do it instead of doing it yourself? EEng (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mobile device with an email issue. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Happy to help. EEng (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much everything is cleaned up now. I also sent an email to oversight. I had to block the user, as he was actively posting BLP violations into articles and onto talk pages. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's now repeating the same claims in his unblock request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm emailing oversight again, this time requesting talk privileges be revoked. EEng (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All cleaned up, talk privs revoked. EEng (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Abusive administrator threatening editors for hurting their feelings

I recently became aware of a situation where 2 admins (User:Nyttend and User:Orlady) were using the administrator toolset abusively against User:WilliamJE. Not only were they disregarding policy by skipping directly to an only warning message before blocking, they are miscategorizing comments about their behavior as attacks. I believe this is because they are admins and the ones who are telling them they are being abusive are mere editors. I left a comment here that I felt they were being abusive. Nyttend then reverted it as a personal attack here and then threatened to block me (as single warning) if I continued these "personal attacks". I informed him on my talk page that he needed to reread what the definition of a personal attack is and to get soe thicker skin. I also told him at that point he was a disgrace and should resign. Then I reverted his reversion of my edit to Orlady's talk page here. My opinion of admins on this site is extremely low so I don't think anything will come out of this but I feel I need to report those 2 admins for abusing their tools so its at least on record. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• For clarity: If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying you are not User:WilliamJE. Correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, I am not WilliaJE. He is not the only one on this site that has a problem with the rampant admin abuse that goes unchecked and I stopped editing largely because of it. I stumbled onto the discussion when I was looking at an article Orlady had edited, which led me to the discussion earlier today. I was curious so I looked more into it. I am utterly unimpressed with either admin but especially Nyttend who seems to think that policy does not apply to him and its not any other editors place to tell him about policy. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the remarkable timing of your edits, that's an extraordinary claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Good AGF but I see your not even an admin so you can't even do anything about this. I am much more hated than William, I used to be Kumioko but I am not editing under my old username anymore nor am I really editing this site anymore largely because of admin abuse that goes unchecked just like this and the communities failure to do anything about it. Nyttend has always been arrogant and abusive towards non admins and his decisions are frequently wrong so I couldn't simply sit idly by and watch him run another productive editor from the site with his attitude and abusive battleground behavior. At this point its obvious no one cares so I'm going to log back off again. It looks like abusive admins and battleground behavior from the goes unchecked again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at some of this IP's edits. Are they in line with WP:NPA?

• Edit summary Sanctions and Arbcom are both a joke You may as well ust stop editing Nina
• Arbitration Enforcement admins are abusive admins who are abusing the use of it, i.e. certain Arbcom provisions
• That is complete bullshit AGK, edit summary "That is complete BS AGK"
• You Sir are a bully and you are a disgrace
• I need to get "soe thicker skin", said right here

This IP is jumping into a totally unrelated situation in which William, immediately after coming off a civility block, tells the blocking admin that she's done something that "low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience" would do; tells the blocking admin "You continue to lie in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's reprehensible. As for following around, that isn't harassment. Its making sure you and no other administrator abuse your tools and when you do someone holds all of you accountable and tries to fix the shit you've done to other people"; responds to a comment I made by saying "Not going to say anymore. You can't win arguments against idiots as my Mom used to say or people without a conscience. Absolute power makes that disappear in people"; and refers to an old case of which I'm not aware by saying "TigerShark is so incompetent that he proposed 0RR for Joe with no exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations". William was blocked making tons of unfounded accusations, e.g. that I was citing myself by claiming that this edit was by someone else. Included in WP:WIAPA's definition of personal attacks is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" — when you make a claim like this, arguing that citing myself by linking to someone else, how possibly do you have evidence? Meanwhile, note that William late last year got a month-long block for "highly confrontational, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to dealing with others, personal attacks, inapproprate use of user page and holding and acting on grudges". Some time later, you say "Instead I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!" You're obviously still taking a battleground approach and holding (and threatening to act on) grudges. Someone explain to me why we tolerate this? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? You know that non admins can see the block log and history right? YOU KNOW,that all we need to do is look at his block log and see that the last block was in October of 2012 right? The block Orlady performed was purely disruptive and your attitude towards WilliaJE was as well. Anyone would be annoyed if someone, admin or otherwise reverted their edits without discussion, derailed an AFD and refused to discuss it and when you did it was snide comments and arrogance. Anyone would be annoyed at that. Your approach to all of this is what's highly confrontational and battleground. Your simply counting on your fellow admins to just stand beside you and back yo up and not look into the problem, which may well be right but I am hoping that someone will take the time to look through your history of battleground conduct on this site. Its clearly evident in your edit history and in your conduct here. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My version of the history, for the benefit of those of you who are addicted to wikidrama: This relates to some interactions between User:WilliamJE and User:Nyttend, related to Wirtland (micronation) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wirtland (micronation). The on-wiki mostly occurred on Nyttend's talk page; also see User talk:Mark Arsten#Wirtland (micronation). Apparently there was some activity off-wiki on the Wirtland website, where complaints against Misplaced Pages and Nyttend were posted. After some amount of discussion:

• Nyttend warned WilliamJE about personal attacks: .
• WilliamJE removed the warning with an edit summary saying: "Take it to ANI. Your behavior on the page is reprehensible and you're an administrator. This is the 2nd time you've threatened me with a block for calling you on your bs."
• Nyttend gave WilliamJE a final warning on personal attacks
• WilliamJE removed it; edit summary reads: "Take it ANI or resign as administrator."
• Orlady noticed that edit summary on WilliamJE's talk page (which I had watchlisted in August 2013 in connection with an unrelated dispute where I was sympathetic to WilliamJE's position) and posted "Edit summaries can also be personal attacks -- such as this one: . I strongly recommend that you restrain your animosity."
• Interactions continued at Nyttend's and Mark Arsten's talk pages.
• After Nyttend posted on my talk page to thank me for getting involved, WilliamJE posted a new diatribe against Nyttend on my talk page.
• Perceiving the comments to be a continuation of personal attacks, escalated to the new venue of my talk page, I went to WilliamJE's talk page and posted an "only warning" regarding the continuation of his personal attacks. (Text included: You've already had a "final warning," so I could block you right now. However, I don't like to do that to productive contributors, so I'm hoping this warning will make a bigger impression on you, coming from a different user. If you persist in your obsessive (and apparently baseless) personal attacks on User:Nyttend, you should expect to receive a forced vacation from Misplaced Pages editing. )
• WilliamJE removed the warning (edit summary: Take it to ANI) and promptly returned to my talk page to make a series of three edits in which he added to his bill of particulars against Nyttend . That evidence of his commitment to continuing the attacks on Nyttend, immediately after my warning, led me to conclude that it was time for an enforced wikibreak to help him calm down, so I blocked him for 24 hours for personal attacks.
• The rest of the history that I know about is on display at WilliamJE's talk page and my talk page (scroll down to find the several relevant sections).

IMO, this wasn't about "hurting my feelings" or Nyttend's. This was about deliberate and persistent disruption in the form of personal attacks. Unfortunately, WilliamJE's subsequent comments to me do not lead me to believe that he intends to give up that behavior. (Particularly when he said: "What you did to me is permanently on my block log. That's the Misplaced Pages equivalent of giving someone a criminal record. Only low-life cold-blooded snakes without a conscience do that. Your blocking me for harrassment when you don't know what constitutes it or explain how I was doing that makes you to be an incompetent if not administrator. Especially since almost everything you did or said towards me starting with that talk page message and your first comment to me on Nyttend's page has been labbeled dead wrong and or heavily criticized by everyone around Your buddy buddy with Nyttend is reprehensible and should be the cause of your losing administrative tools. ... I will watching the both of you for the next time you try what you did to me to someone else. So watch out. I'll be leading the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!") --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness this ANI is less about Orlady than NYT. NYT seems to have the attitude that policy doesn't apply to him because he is an admin and other editors (particularly non admins) don't have the right to question him on his edits. He has been repeatedly flying off the handly accusing editors of personal attacks for petty reasons. Orlady's problems was her rash action in defense of NYT. The walls of text that are forming to distract from the and the lack of discussion shows pretty effectively what the result of this discussion is going to be. No action against admin abuse once again. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

...regardless of anything else in this case one way or the other, 108, if an editor has a problem with admins, they can bring it to AN/I; you don't need to "white knight" for them. If they have a problem, let them address it. (Also if you really are Kumioko as you claim, your statement "I am not editing under my old username anymore" is somewhat curious seeing as you were, in fact, doing so within the present week.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It most probably is Kumioko, who is a recidivist WP:DIVA, and is currently once again "retired" - but will be back before long, if his usual pattern holds. BMK (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See , Didn't last long , . Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What's conspicuous about this discussion is any lack of mention of what these personal attacks were. As far as I can tell, at least one of the precipitating incidents was Nyttend starting a deletion discussion of Wirtland (micronation) and then trumping that by laying a redirect over it without discussion. Another user reverted that, Nyttend undid that, and then WilliamJE reverted that with the "take it to AFD" remark— which was entirely appropriate. This turned into a templating fight between the two and then devolved from there. WilliamJE's behavior was hardly exemplary but after all the whole dramafest could have been avoided by letting the AFD run normally. It took admin powers to make the conflict stick the way it did, and handily Orlady was there to supply them. And equally Kumioko was available to come and complain and therefore take the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not.

The original complaint had merit. I'm not an admin, and I couldn't have pulled off what Nyttend (assisted by Orlady) did. The AFD should have been let to run, and using admin powers to make sure it didn't was an abuse. Everyone involved should take a round of trouting and go on. Mangoe (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{archivetop|status=no further admin action|result=The blocking issue was already resolved by Sphilbrick prior to the opening of this thread. Concerns should be politely addressed to the admins on their talk page(s). <small>]</small> 13:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)}}

The above discussion was created not on behalf of another editor who's problem has been resolved, it was created because of the issue with admins abusing their access to the tools and nothing was done about it. Just another case of admins protecting their own. Nyttend is an abusive admin who needs to be dealt with before his actions continue to cause editors to leave the site. Orlady jumped to rash action to back up her friend and block William for no reason. I am not using my account because I locked it and scrambled the password. I don't need an account to report abusive admins to ANI and I have a serious problem with this discussion being closed because you found it was me. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. The problem with William was addressed but this isn't about the, this is about the problem with admins abusing their tools and acting in a way that is not acceptable. And to BMK if you don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, then stay out of it, I'm getting tired of editors like you involving yourself. Your just as bad as the abusive admins the only good thing is you aren't an admin because the community recognizes as I do you aren't fit to be one. I also find it curious that there are no admins at all in this discussion. Just a bunch of editors which makes me think admins don't care that other admins are being abusive to editors. And you wonder why people aren't editing anymore. Every admin should be ashamed of themselves for letting their peers act this way. Its just disgraceful. Just one more thing, maybe if the admins on this site would start acting like admins and do something about the abusive admins and abusive editors like BMK above I wouldn't feel compelled to keep coming back. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

close struck, refactored as comment. NE Ent 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish Kumiko hadn't started this thread. (I'm trying to choose my words carefully; note that I did not say Kumiko has no right to ask that this group address admin abuse which may be occurring with respect to others.) The reasons for this wish are threefold:

1. While I consider it acceptable to request action on potential abuse involving other parties, it complicates the solution situation, and would be best limited to situations where the direct party is unwilling or unable to bring a request. William has indicated plans to bring such a request, so this one just muddies the waters.
2. Kumiko knows that his reputation proceeds him, which may lead others, fairly or unfairly, to be tempted to discount the concerns. This may end up hurting William, which presumably is not Kumiko's goal.
3. I think it is best if ANI actions are sought when other avenues fail. This incident is fairly fresh, and I felt that some progress, admittedly small, was occurring. My personal feeling is that ANI is for disputes that cannot be resolved among the parties, or are spiraling out of control. While I do not pretend it is likely that William and Nyttend will reach an amicable solution soon, I thought it was useful to try. I addressed Nyttend with some of my concerns, and that discussion is ongoing.

Kudos to User:Mangoe for a nice summary of the underlying incident.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion on William's talk page. The issues are complex, and I don't believe that Sphilbrick and I agree on every nuance, but that said, S Philbrick's conduct in trying to find a constructive way forward was exemplary and they have the patience of a saint.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

As long as the IP/Kumioko saw fit to add to this closed report and NE Ent (the closer) saw fit to undo his close, I propose a block of User:KumiokoCleanStart and his IP for disruptive editing, harassment, and trolling. I would make the block of Kumioko at least one month and the duration of the IP's block is largely unimportant as it is a dynamic IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Kumioko's comments are only disruptive if we choose to make them that way, and suppressing them only feeds the "admins protect their own" meme. (and those of us who are apparently "just as bad.") NE Ent 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to block the IP for everyday ANI ranting, though it probably would be a good idea to indefblock the KumiokoCleanStart account, as they say "I locked it and scrambled the password" and therefore any further edits from that account would mean it's somehow been compromised. Other than that this should probably be closed as it's unlikely to lead to any action or productivity, just drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko is not ranting just at ANI (see ). That said, my interest is in seeing Kumioko blocked. If the IP continues to edit after that, he can be blocked for evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Ok, fair enough, I see your point. I wasn't aware the rant had spilled over elsewhere too. Still, it's just WP:DIVA stuff. It won't rise to disruption or blocking unless it continues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First I want to say that if you want to waste time blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account go ahead. Many of you have been wanting to do that for a long time anyway Its really a pointless waste of time but its your time to waste Second, I locked that account so if I choose to edit as an IP its not block evasion. I not really hiding the fact of who I was and if you took more interest in dealing with abusive admins like Nyttend, Sandstein and a stack of others than in silencing me for trying to bring attention to the problem a lot less editors would be leaving, more editors would be joining and Misplaced Pages would be a happier place. Lastly, My comments at Arcom were due to the poorly written "review" that invites increased abuse by admins who already abuse it and will continue to drive the problem of editors being treated negatively on this site. If that's not a problem for you Bbb23 then I' not sure what I can say other than that is disappointing. I would also add that if your intent is to send a message to editors that going to ANI with abusive admin issues isn't a to be done on this site and its better for them to simply stop editing and go like so many others have done, then go ahead and block me. I am already disappointed at how this whole thread has turned into a bash Kumioko for bringing an admin abuse issue fest. Its clear to me at this point that even admins with a history of abuse are more desired than editors or those who want to improve the system and make it fair. Adminship is no big deal and I am tired of seeing it treated like its the keys to theh kingdom. Many of you are disgracful and should be ashamed for not taking the issue more seriously. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any policy justifications for a block--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the diva rant I'm sure that no admin is interested in playing whack-a-troll with Kumioko. Just revdel particularly nasty comments and let WP: DENY kick in. However, I agree with Starblind: a block of the KumiokoCleanStart account would be appropriate. MercenaryHoplite (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, no basis for a block, and I'm also opposed to this talk of "divas". I've seen essays, maybe even policies, though I can't locate them right now, that exhort us to consider the fact that there's a human being behind each account and IP, and to not talk to them in a way we wouldn't face to face with, say, a neighbour. I've always disliked the essay WP:DIVA as giving encouragement to forgetting the human aspect. I don't think linking to it serves any other purpose than to show the linker is superior to the wikiholics who "storm off" or "take their ball and go home", or various other amusing ways of putting it. The people that I've known who've "stormed off" "accompanied by a long diatribe against whatever petty issue drove them away this time" have done it because they've been deeply upset and have really intended to leave for good, not because they're hoping for "Please don't go" messages. Then they tend to find they can't shake the addiction and often return in some form, to a storm of ridicule. Ha ha, what fun. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC).

I agree with the human being part, but, of course, whenever we block or ban an account, we do so to a human being, not necessarily because they're a "bad" person, but because they disrupt Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, freedom of speech. It's snowing. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Freedom of speech" is irrelevant and does not apply on Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, in so many ways. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, precisely correct. As proof, the next time you get blocked, either under this IP address, or another, or with your regular account, contact a lawyer and an elected representative and complain that your "rights" are being infringed. See how far you get before someone stops returning your calls. BMK (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not the first person to come around here crying "freedom of speech". And you won't be the last to accordingly be summarily ignored for having explicitly demonstrated you have no understanding of how Misplaced Pages, or the Internet in general, works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IP is right BMK and The Bushranger you need to stop acting like jerks. This is why people leave. There are much better ways to address people and since this demeanor is reflected by both of you frequently it appalls me that neither of yo have been banned from the site at this point. You act like this all the time for no reason other than to be assholes and enough is enough. If anyone should be blocked its the 2 of you with your history. The fact that the Bushranger hasn't been stripped of his admin rights long ago for generally being a jerk to everyone is equally appalling. Firther proof that one does not need to be nice to editors on this site as long as they are an admin. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kumioko, my apologies to you that I am not an admin, because I know it deprived you of yet another opportunity to cry "Admin abuse!", which seems to be your primary activity as self-appointed amateur (and incompetent) Wiki-ombudsman. (And you wonder why nobody takes anything you say seriously.) BMK (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - as essentially being pointless. Blocking the IP will have no effect, as it is dynamic. Blocking the KumiokoCleanStart account isn't a terrible idea, but as it isn't being used at the moment, then it is an unnecessary action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Point of order. Since I'm rather closely involved here, my yes/no opinion is already obvious, so I'll not weary you with reasoning. All I'll say is that if Kumioko's actions warrant blocking, we should block without regard to the technical side of things: if we block the account or one of the IP addresses for disruption and he doesn't edit during the duration of the block, all is well. If he continues editing via other IP addresses, his actions will fall under WP:EVADE. If a block is warranted, let's impose it now; the only reason not to block him is if we decide that he hasn't done anything warranting a block. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Kumioko is retired anyway and has a dynamic IP. Guess what he'll do... Epicgenius (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend abusing his tools

It's a very simple case. He issued me a level 3 NPA warning on my talk page. What in these here, here, here, here, and here here posts that were my times addressing him before the warning merits a level 3 warning. Nothing at all.

Nyttend issued a level 3 warning as an attempt to bully me because he didn't like being criticized. That is an abuse of tools as an administrator....William 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

William, are you aware of what we mean by "abuse of tools"? It means that "editors should not act as administrators...in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Anyone, even someone logged out, could have made all of the edits I've made around here, aside from the original redirect, which probably requires autoconfirmed status. Let me remind you that you've just accused me of a bigtime WP:INVOLVED violation, and that's a serious accusation. WP:WIAPA says that serious accusations require serious evidence: you've provided absolutely no evidence of misuse of tools as an administrator. Why again should this not be considered a personal attack by you on me? Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is all you consider abuse Nyttend then you definitely should not be an admin because you don't have an understanding of when you should and shouldnt use the tools. You also cannot keep claiming personal attack when people are showing you to be abusing the tools. That is abuse of authority as an admin if not an abuse of the tools themselves. 108.48.100.44 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling people "jerks" and "assholes" is not acceptable. Doing so while attempting to show that others are being abusive is not going to win you any points. Yeah, you feel you and others been attacked/wronged/whatever. It's not an acceptable response. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

He lies too in message that came along with the level three warning. To quote word for word- 'Let me be substantially firmer than I was before. You completely failed to observe that I never even edited the AFD, but you recklessly accused me of vandalism. You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page, but you accuse me of disrupting it by making edits without explanation. As WP:WIAPA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks, and you accused me of making a bad-faith nomination when I never made any nomination at all. Just read his edit summary of this edit- Nominating for deletion. He issues a level 3 warning saying he never nominated anything for deletion. His edit history says that isn't true at all. Also the statement 'You completely failed to remove the AFD template from the page is a lie also. I removed the AFD tags completely with this edit He didn't give any rationale for a nominating for deletion see posts here and here or for his converting the page to a redirect in this edit other than saying 'better idea yet'. His grounds for me making personal attacks in the warning are total bs. The abuse of warning tags should have gotten him a block alone....William 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the overall substance, but where has he (and I quote) "abused his tools"? Has he blocked you inappropriately? Wrongly protected a page? Dumping a template may be tossing power around, but if he doesn't use his tools, he's not abusing his tools DP 20:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WW2InfoBox

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

at Template:WW2InfoBox there is a user who removed "nazi" from nazi germany, it is more usefull to include "nazi germany" in the infobox than just "germany" , i think he will edit war over it, and his edit is not so constructive 90.132.40.49 (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for ANI. Have you spoken to the editor on their talk page? Or on the MILHIST project page? AN/I is the last resort when there's a serious issue, not the first place to come with a concern somebody might edit-war. Your concern is appreciated, but without even knowing who the user is, there's nothing we can do. (If they do start actual edit-warring, the correct place to report is WP:ANEW; if they simply get into a dispute and discussion on the template talk page, their talk page, and/or projecr page are unfruitful, the next step is WP:DRN.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Was, as far as I can tell, just a matter of the word "Nazi" making that entry in the infobox stand out as inconsistent. Other country links point to WW2-relevant articles e.g. Empire of Japan. The problem was "Nazi Germany" used Template:Flag whereas Empire of Japan and the others use Template:Flagcountry. Switching the template used while maintaining the same links fixed the problem. --— Rhododendrites |  17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Which, by the way, is to reinforce The Bushranger's point that this attempts to address this through other venues would've probably succeeded pretty easily. --— Rhododendrites |  17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Verasafe

It seems we have IP contributors coming out of the woodworks to !vote there with little or no edits elsewhere. As the nominator, I'm obviously involved in that AfD, but the page might justify semi-protection to save the closing admin from checking/clicking on the contribs of each of these IPs. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag 'em up as Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account, and trust in admins to evaluate consensus.

Remember that the idea of Misplaced Pages is to provide info; maybe a *little* article about that company might be OK? If it's not spammy, I mean; and if it meets WP:GNG.

The number of spammy advocates shouldn't matter, and there's always DRV, but really, think of the big picture; from a quick look, I imagine the co passes GNG, so we can keep a little non-spammy page about 'em? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely add {{spa}} to those IP editors' comments if that concerns you. Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow

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

I had made some edits to the article Hinduism in Pakistan that can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hinduism_in_Pakistan&diff=593445517&oldid=593438770, but User:AcidSnow has formatted it, removing the sentences that say there were forced conversions back in time, that a mob ransacked a temple at Nowshera in 2005 etc. Please tell me what to do about it.—Khabboos (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

See section #User:Khabboos above. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Grade X

I don't know where else to report this. Anyway, recently I'm working on two BLPs from the noticeboard, Rick Joyner and Steve Stockman. These are unrelated subjects but there's been a lot of suspicious edit-warring on both, with 1houstonian blocked on Stockman and TheDude36 blocked on Joyner. Now, out of nowhere, comes Grade X and makes suspiciously similar rollbacks on both articles: Stockman here at 18:53 and Joyner here at 18:55. I don't even know how this is classified, but it's weird, wrong, and bad. I will notify everyone momentarily.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah never alerted me about this report. I haven't touched the article on which he editwarred on since my second revert. I haven't touched the Joyner article either but it looked better to me in the previous revised state. Grade X (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FFS, what do you call this?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Grade X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1houstonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheDude36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now Grade X is removing my comments on noticeboards. Is this OK?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, note that per commons:User talk:JBingle#Blocked Unjustly two of the individuals involved in the edit war apparently share an IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Grade X is recreating the previously deleted article The Wimbles. It currently consists of nothing but a direct copy from a copyrighted site. His or her actions in recreating the article, deleting speedy tags, and edit warring to reinsert copyrighted material can no longer be explained as the actions of a new user. Meters (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen someone else just recently "voting" Keep on an article talk page like this one did on The Wimbles' talk page. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Grade X's last edit to the talk page wasn't half as weird as his previous edits, which consisted of: (1) putting in a meaningless template; (2) putting in a slightly more meaningful but ultimately meaningless template; (3) putting in the word "Milk"; (4) putting in "Newhaven" (as a template - he has a thing about Newhaven); and (5) putting in "East Sussex" (again as a template).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

GradeX, don't undo stuff; let admins decide if it's legit. They're not stupid; they'll deal with it appropriately.

All of ya - if in doubt, just stop... and talk. On the article talk page.

"suspicious edit-warring"? WP:RPP, to force discussion. Disruptive editors? WP:WARN then WP:ANI.

You think they're sock-puppeting? Report it on WP:SPI - don't accuse here.

Mostly - get back to a discussion on Talk:Rick_Joyner (or whatever article you have an issue with).

If you want admins to do something - tell them what and why. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sensible advice. BTW comments by other people on notice boards should not be removed unless they are definitely and clearly libellous or copyright violation. In either case, an admin should be contacted to revdel the offending material (assuming it is in need of extra deletion - if it isn't, the admin will restore it) or to revdel and contact oversight in more extreme cases. Peridon (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not removing any more editors' comments. Case dismissed. Grade X (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

But you're still creating inappropriate pages, including The Wimbles, this time as a redirect to Wimbledon F.C. I deleted it as an implausible redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• A curious combination of combativeness and what I can only call incompetence, esp. on Steve Stockman. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know if it's just an odd coincidence or some good hand/bad hand editing, but his last two mainspace edits have been to revert some IP edits to Morgan Freeman and Let's Rock the House, two articles with no connection to one another. Reverting different IPs on different articles, except the IPs, 94.196.241.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 92.41.110.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), both geolocate to the same exact location with the same exact ISP. Given that Grade X's non-BLP edits seem to be focused on that same geolocation that just seems to be an odd coincidence...especially since in both instances Grade X has somehow managed to revert those IPs within 60 seconds despite never editing either article previously. The only time they've ever seemed to have reverted that quickly is when it's from that specific geolocation, even their edit-warring at Rube Goldberg and the speedy deletion template removal from The Wimbles wasn't done that quickly... - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Public domain cartoons

Unfortunately I think we need moderator help with List of animated films in the public domain in the United States and User:86.184.235.95 - WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL and WP:RS. However the issue extends across many articles dealing with cartoons across many months. Other accounts (possible socks?) involved User:24.165.97.245 and User:31.51.74.67 and User:24.27.180.14 and User:86.176.244.182 and.. well it goes on and on. -- GreenC 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like prot would calm things while it's worked out, so I requested it. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

...and it's happened. .

Discuss content on the talk page; report problem users on WP:ANI, and so forth; WP:DISPUTE.

Done here? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected page for one week and blocked 86.184.235.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two days for edit warring. --AdmrBoltz 21:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The article's current revision is a massive copyright labeling problem and rewards the problem user who is violating V, CIVIL and 3RR - and who IP hops around anyway so the block won't impact much. If you would like a suggestion: the article should be protected for registered users so that we can control for socks and user blocking will have some impact. In any case the current revision of the article should be rolled back to one made by myself or FilmandTVFan28 to address the copyright problem. -- GreenC 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Admrboltz, for looking into it. -- GreenC 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Threats from Dr. Blofeld to have me banned

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

Dr. Bloefeld has threatened to have me banned from nominating articles to WP:AFD, claiming bad faith. There's some history with this editor, including previous personal attacks, frivolous accusations of bad faith and wikihounding, c.f., 1, 2, 3, 4. I've asked that he leave me alone 5. Obviously, he has no intent to do that. I don't appreciate the personal attacks and claims of bad faith and I certainly don't appreciate the threats. If he opposes the nomination, the proper response is to !vote to keep; threats and personal abuse are not appropriate. Requesting assistance. Msnicki (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, he can either get you banned from such nominations or not. It doesn't really rise to the level of a "threat". But Blofeld should now realise that you don't want him posting on your talk page any more, and he should respect your wishes by not doing so again. I don't see that any other action is necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

He's not done. He's simply taken his wikihounding back to another user talk page. Msnicki (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who nominates an article like this for deletion 26 minutes after creation, with no prod or request to expand and clearly ignoring available sources and taking straight to AFD really shouldn't be permitted to take articles to AFD. It's disruptive and a nuisance to editors who work here in good faith. I sourced Jazmín Chebar in 2 minutes flat. You've shown repeatedly that you have a history of bad faith and inappropriate nomming and articles keep being kept. Then when editors show a concern with your editing you remove their posts like you once did at an AFD and on your talk page and then claim you're being harassed. Truth be told your user name was only vaguely familiar when I approached you today even though it was a few weeks back but I encounter a lot o editors on here so it's difficult to remember everybody. But it did ring a bell with somebody who'd repeatedly make wrong AFD requests. After you removed my message to you, I remembered I got through better on Moxy's talk page where I see you've been causing a nuisance now as well with User:Hwy43. Proof of your time wasting and disruptive nature is that you've taken this here claiming I've personally attacked you and are seeking for me to be blocked or something. Unless you learn pretty soon you're going to find yourself restricted from editing here. Enough. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pure bullying and completely inappropriate. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you think good faith editors feel when you pick on their work and try to get them deleted within 30 minutes? Bullied? Victimized? Made to feel like they're not wanted here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of the linked article, and can, at least superficially, understand why it was nominated. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if Msnicki might like to explain the urgency in nominating articles written by experienced users for deletion within minutes of their creation ? Would they be open to waiting a few days before nominating articles for deletion or requiring a second opinion on their nominations ? Dr. Blofeld's behaviour, whilst arguably a touch aggressive, is a symptom and not the root cause of the problem, I think we should focus more on solving the cause, which should eliminate the symptoms, instead of spending too much time focusing on the symptoms in isolation. Nick (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no question I'm a deletionist and that I interpret our guidelines at WP:GNG asking that notability be established by reliable independent secondary sources fairly strictly. Over the years, I have made 40 nominations of which 2 are presently open. I withdrew 2 of them immediately based on new sources offered, 4 were closed as redirect, 1 as merge, 4 as no consensus and 2 as delete. The remainder were closed as keep. I have no idea how my "batting average" compares with all AfDs by all editors but I can assure you that all of my nominations were in good faith. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bech-Bruun, where I was the nom and first attracted Dr. Blofeld's ire, consensus went against me based on a Den Storee Danske page that looks to me like a WP:USERGENERATED wiki page. Contrary to Dr. Blofeld's claim, I have never deleted anyone's comment. What I did delete was an "Arbitrary page break" heading that seemed superfluous. Dr. Blofeld promptly replaced it and I let the matter drop.

In the case at hand, I did nominate quickly but only after making a good faith effort to examine the sources and look for more. I am aware that we should not WP:BITE newbies but an experienced editor is not a newbie and should be aware of the requirements of WP:GNG. I came upon the article because it was added to List of fashion designers, a heavily spammed list that is constantly attracting promotional entries. Further, while I remain the only delete !vote, I note that already, 2 of the 5 keep !votes are weak keep, the editors expressing reservations about the sources.

I certainly did not come here requesting a ban on me(!), so I'm surprised at that part of the responses, though I suppose I should be glad no one is !voting to ban me. The reason I came here is because I don't like being accused of bad faith and I don't like being wikihounded and I don't believe I should have to put up with it. From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." Dr. Blofeld is certainly entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to state it as a personal attack. If he disagrees with my nominations, he should focus on the evidence. I am not unreasonable and do have a history of changing my !votes and withdrawing my nominations based on other editors' arguments. I came seeking help and advice. I have never personally attacked Dr. Blofeld and I have no interest in fighting with him even though it seems like that's what he wants. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Msnicki. I know what you're saying about WP:GNG but I've always found it's worth giving an editor a few days to add in appropriate references, not everybody creates articles ready to go, some will create an article, play with the wording and add references after a bit of editing rather than straight away, I know it's not really ideal. We're not asking you to wait months but it would be good if you could give editors a few days rather than just 30 minutes to demonstrate notability. I'd go with watchlisting something, coming back to it in a few days, maybe a week or so, and then thinking about discussion with the editor. I'm fairly certain that if you were to agree to that, it would be enough to keep Dr. Blofeld and others here happy, resolving the issue. I don't see anything massively wrong with your batting average at AfD, just that you're perhaps being a little hasty in nominating. I don't immediately see anything ban worthy either (and I'm not actually sure what's going on below with voting anyway). Nick (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree to wait a week or so. Almost nothing on Misplaced Pages needs fixing immediately. But to clarify,I don't believe I have any real pattern of nominating immediately. I have nominated exactly 3 pages the same day they were created, 8 pages after less than a year (4 after 7 to 21 days, 2 after 1 month, 2 more after 2 months) and 27 pages after an average of just under 6 years. Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've undone the closure by an IP, as I don't think it is appropriate for an IP to close an ANI discussion, let alone this one, which is still an active discussion (and one that needs to be had). Msnicki either needs to slow down with the AfD nominations, or be topic banned, because this sort of practice is out of order. And Dr. Blofield is most definitely not being a bully. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

- thanks for highlighting everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving right along. For the record, this admin thinks that NAC of a one-day old AfD is inappropriate. Signed, Drmies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::::::::Hat removed per WP:SIGNHAT. (This editor thinks referring to one self in third person is a wee bit pretentious, don't you?) NE Ent 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Good gravy... if that's "everything that is wrong with Misplaced Pages" then Misplaced Pages is doing rather well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Sure, 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I'd say a rather more serious problem is sockpuppetry, including the stealth use of IP editing by editors with well-established accounts, in order to evade scrutiny. BMK (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Going beyond what BMK said (which is something I agree with), any attempt to claim you are a newcomer is a bit daft. In this particular case, the issue was still being discussed, and it is also something that needs further discussion; I would've reverted a non-admin closure as well. I'm not aware of any instance where an IP has closed a discussion and it has stood, apart from perhaps one that they'd filed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Your account status/you being an IP is not the issue. The problem is the close was a bad decision. The original poster was asked for further information in an effort to actually resolve the incident when you closed the discussion down. It was right and proper to revert you, just as it would have been if you were a registered editor, an administrator, a member of ArbCom or Jimmy himself. If you wish to continue to close discussions, please ensure that there's no questions for participants and that the issue has genuinely been resolved, either through agreement between the parties, the case being referred to a different venue or some form of administrative action having been taken, and where possible, that there's no open questions awaiting an answer. Nick (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Propose a policy, or shut up. You know how. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, are you going to contribute something useful to this thread, or just trolling? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC) You seem to forget, I contributed the most useful thing of all - I closed it, so we could get on with editing. Who is trolling here? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• weak oppose ban, but I've seen a long history of premature and inappropriate AfD noms from Msnicki. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• oppose ban, Dr. Blofeld is sometimes very blunt when you do thinks he does not like. Half the warning in the message and you come close to what he really means. In most cases, you can safely ignore him. The Banner talk 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Safely ignore me? Of course this has nothing to do with Talk:The Dorchester and your inappropriate page tagging. You and Msnicki come from the same mold in inappropriate patrolling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Banner, the potential topic ban I touted was for the OP, not Blofield. Not quite sure why people are voting, as no-one has actually set up a proposal for it, just stating that it could be a course of action. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

....hot air.... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"sockpuppetry, including the stealth use of IP editing by editors with well-established accounts, in order to evade scrutiny" - nice to see WP:AGF in action, isn't it? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AGF until shown to be unwarranted. Everything you write points to your strong familiarity with Misplaced Pages's mores -- Oh, I know, you've been editing for a long time using various IPs, and that's how you can to know all this stuff! Of course!! So, if that were true, you are allowed to bounce around from IP to IP so that no one gets a handle on the character and behavior of the person actually doing the editing. A wonderful object example of why IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit, and, in a rational world, wouldn't be.

But I'll stick with my initial conclusion, that you're an established editor getting his jollies by tweaking noses and dancing around the trolling pole. Certainly, your contributions show that you're WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey! It turns out I was precisely correct: . 88 has (or had) an account, and is here for the "lulz". BMK (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

BMK, if you think 88 (what an unfortunate name) is a troll, don't feed him. For the record, I do not agree with Lukeno94's earlier statement that an IP shouldn't close an active AfD discussion--IMO, no non-admin should. But let's drop all of that now. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I never said anything about AfD; it was this thread they closed (more than willing to drop it, just wanted the facts to be right) :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just closed that AfD: no reason to let that linger. I do agree that this nomination was WAY premature, and the ease with which Dr. Blofeld claims to have sourced the article seems to belie the BEFORE claims made by Msnicki. Now, I an unwilling to let a topic ban discussion start, let alone continue, before a pattern of disruption is made clear. If that happens, we can talk. However, Msnicki, if you're 2 out of 40 on actual deletions, your batting average is abysmal! and you should really, really consider not doing that anymore. Or you might ask Blofeld how he does his searches. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What's done is done, I suppose, and I have no interest to continue pursuing the deletion. But, Drmies, did you actually look at the Google books results Dr. Blofeld cited or just take his word for it that they were helpful? There's a reason why WP:GOOGLEHITS is an WP:ATA. Every hit on the first two pages (and presumably, these are the best Google could find) is the absolute essence of a trivial mention. I think I do know how Dr. Blofeld does his searches: He accepts anything. Msnicki (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is hardly in-depth discussion, but it's not a trivial mention. Yes, I looked at it, when I closed the AfD, thank you for asking. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the entire "discussion": "Top fashion firms include Jazmin Chebar, Tramando, and Wanama." How could this possibly be any more trivial? Unbelievable. Msnicki (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Very brief" is not the same as trivial, Msnicki. It's a real book, and being called "top fashion firms" is hardly trivial. Believe it. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, this appears to run counter to my own plain language reading of WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage" as elaborated in the footnote, and of WP:SPIP, which requires that the works "focus" on the topic. But I am human and I make mistakes. If I have misunderstood what constitutes significant coverage, I would like to correct that. Consequently, I have requested guidance at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not misread it. Articles should always be created with sufficient sources to pass WP:V, which requires that they be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Based" is an important word as well: it doesn't mean having one reference to a source that supports one detail, it means that the content is derived from reliable sources. The notion of time-limits for speedying, PRODing, and AFDing are popular among our more inclusionist editors, but they are not supported by any policies.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In this case i disagree with Drmies, which i don't often do. I don't feel that that bare opinion, however positive, with no further discussion, adds much to notability, and I think the wording of the GNG supports my view, as Msnicki says above. In this case it is probably moot, because there are other sources, and this isn't AfD or DRV anyway. But as a matter or principal. I don't thaink that once-sentence comment can be called "significant discussion", whether it is "trivial" or not. DES 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then why start now? :) Oh, I would never argue that this comes anywhere near significant coverage, and I'm a card-carrying deletionist, as my "personal" categories should indicate. But it's far from a trivial mention, and if you add all the more and less trivial mentions in Ernst's search (I gave only one example), and you throw in the other references, they do add up to notability, at least in my opinion and in that of all but one of the participants in the AfD (and the nominator of course). Drmies (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you finally get over your anti-IP thing, you will probably realise that "Dr. Bloefeld has threatened to have me banned" is ridiculous, and a waste of time. But hey, it's your time you're wasting, so whatever. -IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki. You have a clear misunderstanding of notability. La Nacion is a national paper of Argentina and has many articles with extensive coverage. And the fact that the book cites the firm as one of the "Top fashion firms" indicates notability, regardless of coverage. All I ask is for you to look in google books for a topic first. Searching here the number of hits in multiple independent sources indicates notability in its own right. Some of the hits are simply passing mentions in travel guides, but national books would hardly mention her in a book about Argentina if she wasn't notable. Some of the sources which are only available in snippets clearly have a fair bit written about her anyway. All I ask is for you to a] look in google books before nominating an article and if you spot at least 10 hits in different books, however small, to reconsider taking to AFD and b] wait at least 24 hours after an article has been created to take it to AFD. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already said I would wait a week or more before nominating a page. But I disagree with your view that 10 Google hits means anything, especially given the advice at WP:ATA that WP:GOOGLEHITS are not sufficient and that "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." The AfD was closed and I have no interest in requesting a review but I stand by my view that the Google books results do not support notability. Not even close. They're all completely trivial mentions. Msnicki (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll find that a lot of wikipedia articles only have trivial mentions in sources and really lack true extensive coverage. We have thousands of articles on olympians and footballers for a start which have nothing but a database entry or two online, yet if you took them to AFD they'd be kept. Take Enzo Petito for instance. I can't find anything on him more than a line long. Yet if you took him to AFD he'd be kept. Unfortunately for countries like Argentina the amount of books scanned and wealth of coverage online is still rather poor. Finding decent information even for a lot of the contemporary actors is difficult at times. I think though you'd be amazed if you can access to an Argentine newspaper archive how many extensive articles you'd find written about her. Even as it is sources like , amounting to 479 hits in La Nacion (a leading Argentine national newspaper) and are more than trivial sources which if added to what claims are being made in the books obviously indicates notability. She does actually have extensive coverage, but you're not really experienced enough to know how to research and truly get an accurate idea of what is junk and what is worthy. I agree with you that articles should really all demonstrate great coverage in books etc but that isn't really all that's required on wikipedia to make an article worthy of keeping. I just don't like to see time wasted, and if you don't trust my judgement on what generally ends up being kept then you're going to continue to encounter difficulties and individuals far nastier than myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Those article are allowed because the guidelines say they're okay. Athletes may be presumed notable in lieu of sources per WP:ATHLETE. Per WP:NGRIDIRON, football players are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any top-level professional league. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games. Fashion designers and other creative professionals may be presumed notable in lieu of sources per WP:CREATIVE, but I find no evidence that Jazmín Chebar meets any of the stated criteria. Msnicki (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, we wouldn't delete them purely because all that can be found online is a database and no extensive coverage. It's the same with other articles which have to be assessed differently. Just try to take more care with investigating articles you nominate and wait at least 24 hours after an article is created to take it to AFD. I can say no more. Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support three month holiday from AfD/Speedy deletion nomination - whatever else this thread does or doesn't achieve this edit doesn't seem to be an isolated incident. Unless it can be shown to be an isolated incident, or unless User:Msnicki demonstrates why he/she understands that such edits are problematic, then a three month break from deleting articles to other areas of contribution to the encyclopedia might help everyone. As a hopefully positive suggestion, one area may be in article improvement: The User has themselves since 2006 created 5 articles OPD Mini_Processor, Security tent, Random boosting, Empty chair (law), Hamilton C shell Command_substitution only the last of which reaches the level of sourcing content of the AfD example given. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Msnicki has agreed to take more time in nominating articles to AfD and Dr. Blofeld and Msnicki are now engaging in more constructive conversation, so I think it is time to close this thread. I am One of Many (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. The AfD was closed as keep and I have stated quite definitely that I do not intend to challenge the outcome. I also promised that I will never again nominate a page until at least a week or more after its creation. I consider my own arguments here to be over and to have lost. Quite obviously, my understanding of WP:GNG is at variance from what far more senior editors understand it to ask of us. If the advice I received here regarding the specific case is correct, I'm obviously ignorant and I would like to correct that, gain a better perspective and avoid new mistakes. Frankly, the feedback I received here hurt and I would like to learn from it and move on. I do not want to be back here again. I have no interest or intent to continue fighting. Msnicki (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and uncivil remarks by an IP address

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

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

I warned the user on his/her talkpage, but he/she continues personally attacking me.

• "A supporter of terrorism calling others to civility!" and "The link is red with the blood of innocent Turkish diplomats killed by the ASALA terrorists, brain-washed by sickly extremist people of your kind." .

• Replaces Witnesses of the Armenian Genocide category with a non-existing ASALA terrorism category without an edit-summary .

• "There is a link in the article for those who wish to see a sick old man's hate contributions. Shame on WP for tolerating your dirty, poisonous propaganda."

• "Corrected tendentious editing by a radical ASALA supporter." Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Block 24.133.104.95 (talk · contribs) per - "sickly extremist people of your kind" is well beyond WP:NPA. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Reiterating that request, because the user is adding copyrighted info and not listening. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

24.133.104.95 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 31 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

James R. Fouts article - multiple issues

Over at James R. Fouts, who is the mayor of Warren, Michigan, a local political battle seems to have spilled over onto Misplaced Pages. This is already on the COI board at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#James R. Fouts. There are at least four named editors and two anons involved in edit warring. Three of the named editors are SPAs. There are accusations of "outing", intimidation, paid editing, and what might be considered a legal threat. This is going to take someone with a big hammer. (I'm not involved in this; I'm in California.) --John Nagle (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)