Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:59, 27 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)

• 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?

User Daicaregos - wikilawyering over basic editing rules

Can an admin here please inform User:Daicaregos of the rules on Misplaced Pages regarding repeatedly editing someone's discussion-page comments against their wishes. I have contacted him, but am now obliged to spend x mins of my life in here (Oh how I love Misplaced Pages, and pages are loading really slowly for me today as well). It's not the biggest thing ever - and I'm half tempted to leave it - but I do think he needs to be told what the rules actually are here, and he's not listening to anyone else: far from it. I'll try and make it as simple as I can to adjudicate, which means a bit more text than a short list of links...

I created a new section on the discussion page of Welsh people HERE (1), and then realised that someone else had already created a section on exactly the same subject directly above mine, probably while I was actually writing mine (I did have to leave my laptop at one point, as I often do). On noticing the duplicate section about 40 mins later (nobody had commented in between) I simply removed my own heading and merged the two, leaving an explanatory 'edit-note' HERE (2) and a little note in brackets on the discussion page too.

This is important here: all the points I addressed in my merged-section's comment exactly related to the heading-title of the section above: they both were about the problematic word "ethnicity". I then extended my comment to address other factors that relate to 'ethnicity' - Bertrand Russell's own preferred identity and the Welsh language in particular - simply because they were part a large edit that I had attempted, all parts of which fully-relate to the "ethnicity" term/issue in the section's introduction. Daicaregos seems to be suggesting that by covering so much I am somehow not playing by the section-merging rules. It does all fully relate though, and I've never heard of such rules anyway. I think this could be an area he doesn't fully understand, but I don't know.

Basically I thought I did something pretty simple, and fully 'by the book' too.

So two hours later (and without asking me first), Daicaregos reinstated my heading HERE (3), with his own note next to it. I wasn't best pleased, so I reverted his change and told him on his talk page HERE (4) that that is against the rules. I asked him not to do it again and told him why. I basically said he had to contact me about things like that, not take it upon himself to do it. I thought that would be the end of it.

Without contacting me at all, Dai then decided to the same thing again, but as a subheading this time HERE (5). Dai was then strongly addressed by User:Ghmyrtle on his talk page HERE (6) - presumably the whole discussion, similar link to 4. For some reason though, Dai is holding his ground on this, as can be seen if you read it. He's 'wikilawyering' to the nth degree, which I actually think is nothing but a waste of people's time. He is also claiming that he is being wronged somehow in all this, by both myself and ghmyrtle (you'll have to read it). Personally I have no interest in arguing with him about it, so I've started this ANI hoping it will be the less of the two time-draining evils. I certainly don't want to get into an 'edit war', so I've left the discussion page as it stands.

--

I will add that on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Misplaced Pages can do without. I've always thought headings should be more formal than the text within need be, and it is highly likely I would have changed the wording of the heading anyway: probably changing the first word "Creepy" to "Misleading" or "Inappropriate overkill in" - though I do genuinely feel encreeped about the matter at hand I'm afraid. Welsh people expressed as a country-wide group cannot be an 'ethnic group' by any logical definition of this seemingly newly-expressed term. There is just too much variation, even amongst the most overtly 'Welsh'. And residents of Anglesey and Cardiff are very different culturally: two very different 'ethnic groups' if you must insist on using the term that way. My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh - and I could also be from Honolulu too for all anyone here knows - and I feel that I and most other Welsh people have been estranged from Misplaced Pages's 'Welsh People' article. The intro has changed a little, but it's still not up to scratch: there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all, nor enough balance regarding the minority-spoken Welsh language (still currently called "its language"). I personally think a lot of blustering goes on to stop the words United Kingdom, Britain or British ever getting in. But anyway, I didn't actually need to adapt any of my heading text at all, only effectively 'merge' my new section into the one above.

If anyone else is a bit perplexed about Dai's behaviour here (ie why do this?), I think it could be possible that he wants to initiate an admin-involved discussion on the various merits of recent comments and edits made specifically by myself. I would argue that this isn't the correct way to go about that, or the best eventual place for it to happen either. For those who might be interested in pursuing that line, it can be noted that an alternative introduction to the article is actually being worked on, one that will hopefully be acceptable to enough attending people - it rarely gets better than that in these areas I'm afraid.

I think people may appreciate it if this ANI at least could be kept to the case in hand: ie to clearly affirm the editing rules for this regard, which is hopefully all that's needed. I am also happy to discuss my position regarding the UK, sovereignty, Britishness and anything related though - either one.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs)

PS. I'd like to add that I was unhappy to see the edit-note on me forgetting to sign - calling it a 'wall of text'. I did try to make it easier for someone here, and was prepared to wait a bit. Some people do write more than others - that's life I'm afraid: I don't think it's right to comment negatively on that, an that kind of thing can give the ANI-subject confidence too. I haven't been on Wikpidia for quite a while, am actually quite rusty - and that was no-doubt why I forgot to sign. Matt Lewis (talk)

Ok, clearly nothing's happening in here at least, so can someone just tell this guy he's wrong in here about the discussion-page comment-editing rules, so I can remove my unwanted heading again? I really don't want to 'edit war' over a stupid unwanted section heading: it just may be the thing that finally shrivels my mind. You can then presumably close this thing. There's three people now he hasn't listened to, including an admin. Somebody here could at least just tell him not to revert me again. I'm afraid I'm not going to 'back down' and strike the replaced heading like he wants me to, I think that gives entirely the wrong signal here. I just don't want to do it, and I can see myself tomorrow just reverting him again tbh. Or should I just revert it first and see what happens. I don't know. My head hurts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright I've put it back.. An admin has already had a word with him, but you might want to give it couple of days before closing. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response from User:Daicaregos

Summary of complaint: Matt began a new thread at Talk:Welsh people. He subsequently decided to remove the section heading believing it relevant to the previous thread ("..an ethnic group and nation indigenous to Wales...", by User:Ghmyrtle. I wanted to respond to Ghmyrtle's post, rather than to Matt's post (of over 4000 bytes), so I reinstated Matt's original heading. Following discussion at my talkpage, I subsequently preserved Matt's original heading (“Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction”) as a subheading.

Defence: This complaint seems to be one of interpretation of Talk page guidelines. The Section headings guideline at WP:TPO, says “It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.”. None of Matt's posts have been deleted, nor have they been changed. Not by me, anyway. Note that that guideline also states that no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. (my emphasis).

Matt's post resulted in a rebuke on his talkpage from Ghmyrtle: “I'm tempted to remove your diatribe as, mostly, irrelevant to the article, and completely failing to respond to my point. I won't, but others might. I'm certainly not going to respond to it, though. Please try and keep to the point, rather than going off on a rant.”. I felt the same, which is why I wanted to keep his rant separate from a post that was likely to improve the article. Matt's response to Ghmyrtle included the claim that “… people here need to hear what I have to say about a few things”. Well, that should include all his words, not just those which, in hindsight, he considers appropriate. As Matt says above, “… on reflection I did feel my section title (Creepy "people, ethnic group and nation" introduction) was probably one that Misplaced Pages can do without.” Quite. However, Matt is welcome to strike it through if he subsequently considers his words to have been ill-advised or inappropriate, but it is not right that only some editors have the benefit of his stated views.

For reasons best known only to himself, Matt has decided to bring content issues here. While I believe this to be an inappropriate venue for this, I must respond. His misinformed OR/POV views permeate his posts. e.g. “My identity happens to be by-far the most popular in Wales: British Welsh.” (within para 7 of Matt's complaint, above). As so often with Matt's assertions, this is simply untrue. The 2011 census shows 2011 census shows “Nearly two thirds (66 per cent, 2.0 million) of the residents of Wales expressed their national identity as Welsh in 2011. Of these 218,000 also reported that they considered themselves to be British.” Q.E.D. Staying with content for a while, Matt also complains that “... there is currently no mention of the United Kingdom at all,” (para 7, above). Untrue again. Being part of the UK is not the most notable thing about Welsh people, nor is it true of them all (not all live in the UK or are UK citizens). That is why the UK is not mentioned in the first paragraph. It is, however, in the second paragraph, which states: “Today, Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain”.

I was interested to discover (para 8, above) that Matt is working on a new introduction for Welsh People with others, away from, and without notification at, the article talkpage. Sounds rather sinister to me. Shouldn't discussion about article content be open to all? Please advise.

Conclusion: I am sorry this has been brought here, wasting all of our time. Nevertheless, I would welcome a decision on how the WP:TPO guideline should be interpreted in this matter. I would also ask that Matt is requested to add only cited information to articles, and to bare in mind that, while fascinating, people have to spend time reading his rants, so talk page posts should exclude POV and OR and be succinct. Furthermore, I would ask that editors be requested to refrain from making assumptions (Matt, (para 8, above) and Ghmyrtle (at my talkpage) regarding other editors' motivation, which is against WP:AGF. Daicaregos (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dai, people in Wales call themselves 'Welsh' - of course they do. If you ask them if they are British too, then 90% of them say "yes". IT'S NOT SCOTLAND, where between a quarter and third generally do not see themselves as British - it could be rising, we'll see by September. Your figure of '200,000 British' are people who just put down British, of the 2 million in the census (ironically I think I actually put 'Welsh', and told the guy who picked it up it wasn't clear which to put: he responded a bit oddly, by saying it will all be online next time.) The famously Welsh-speaking island of Anglesey has the kind of stats you are alluding to, where 66% of residents there said they are 'Welsh only', and 10% said 'Welsh and British'. Presumably most of the other 24% were either English, Scottish etc or just 'British'. That says everything you need to know. And yes, that island of the North of Wales could indeed be independent in another world, as it has a clear 'Welsh only' majority -- and that's one reason Wales has no single "ethnicity" in this 'modern' sense of the term. Dai, you want to call us all in Wales a single "ethic group", but it doesn't work. I'm one of a no-doubt minority in Wales who just (or generally, really) only refer to myself as 'British', but that doesn't make me any less Welsh! You are constantly trying to hide this diversity in Misplaced Pages articles, usually by attempting (and often succeeding) in removing the word 'British', or even 'United Kingdom'. I'm so tired of it. I've even had a year or so out and I'm tired of it. As people can probably see, it's actually making my head spin!

I've put my proposed new introduction to others outside of the discussion page largely because you are such a disruptive presence there, and frankly in all these areas regarding UK nationality. It might be me who eventually loses my temper, but I've never been the disruptive force. I essentially get called a 'POV-pusher' for telling people that apples are apples, and I get angry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

I wanted to request review of the request posted at talk:Amazon Eve#Gender. I responded that we do not lock or blank discussions unless they violate Misplaced Pages policies; I just wanted to flag it here in case others saw strong enough BLP concerns or other reasons to honor the request. The request was made by a self-identified representative of the subject of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in these cases, it's recommend that they contact WMF directly, if it's a BLP issue. Anyone have the email address? Liz 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Smells like commercial spamming article to me. But can't be proven to be so, should remain, unless WP:Notability is not fulfilled.Arildnordby (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That article has been a problem for years. Editors with obvious conflicts have attempted to alter the article without regard for Misplaced Pages's policies. This latest user has several times stopped just short of making legal threats. I finally removed the article from my watchlist because it was too much trouble to manage and because there were too few other editors interested in it. Frankly, it's too bad the article wasn't deleted when it was taken to AfD. Even if she passes Misplaced Pages's relatively low threshold of notability, she just isn't that notable. A great resolution, in my view, if one of her supposed reps wanted to take this to WP:OTRS, would be to have the article deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is obviously upheld, under legal threats, by the company Amazing Eve. But, unfortunately, some abuse of Misplaced Pages will always occur, particularly by dedicated persons who happen to be clever as well.Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

THat is incorrect, Arildnordby. The article is not upheld under legal threats, because we do not accept legal threats made by editors against the project or volunteers at the project. And this is precisely why; legal threats are made to intimidate editors and to try to control content. That is why I have blocked JourdySilva until the legal threat is retracted. -- Atama頭 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is that the rep likes to have the article on their client, but doesn't want any of the speculation about her being transgendered (or whatever the term is), of which there is plenty on the internet if you Google her a bit. Is she notable? I think the coverage does meet GNG at least, perhaps not WP:NMODEL since most of it is general coverage as a result of her being so tall and not recognition as a model per se. The rep did contact OTRS, I offered to take a look. The article claimed she was born a man, using original research to tie the subject to a person who, using her real name, identified as transgendered in an article on Out Magazine years ago. The latest is an SPA that insists their research into birth records and such is "proof" of the transgender claims. So far there is not a single reliable source that flat out identifies the subject of the article as anything other than a woman, and so that's what the article should reflect. Anything else is speculation and goes against the core of WP:BLP. Now as to the demands by the rep that we "stop" the discussion, I will AGF on it by now since it stops short of being a legal threat - Barek's comment to them regarding what we can and cannot discuss on a talk page should hopefully be enough. Going forward, we should consider this another one of those "problem" BLPs that needs a few eyes to avoid unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims to creep back in. Maybe one day there will be a source that supports the assertions, but until then, any whiff of her being anything other than a woman should be removed unless accompanied by very robust sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, she wasn't that clever after all, fortunately! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How to get the balance right between open discussion and avoiding violating BLP on talk pages is always tricky but if no reliable sources have been provide linking the subject of the article to the other person or the sexuality claims and they have all been based on WP:OR, I don't see any harm partially courtesy blanking the discussion once it's clear there's nothing new coming, perhaps only leaving the statements that relate to our sourcing requirements and prohibitions of OR. (I'm actually always in favour of blanking discussion of controversy stuff about a living person which is clearly not going to be added to the article if people are concerned about the discussion itself.)

Similarly any future discussions can be deleted outright in the absence of any new sourcing or otherwise relevant, per WP:BLPTALK.

JourdySilva should of course be made aware that if all discussions are partially courtesy blanked, it's more difficult for someone to know what was discussed before and therefore possibly more likely someone will raise the issue again. If this stuff is discussed widely elsewhere I question the wisdom of such blanking instead suggesting the initial discussion is left be.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I've added some IMO fairly neutral hidden comments to the places where this stuff seems to be added most (DOB, birthname and beginning of article) to try to discourage further poorly sources or unsourced additions. In the process I also removed the DOB completely since I didn't find any reliable source which mentions it, even the subject's own pages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the diffs between the one where JourdySilva added his contact info and the one where DangerousPanda redacted that info should be redacted, but not the rest of the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm referring to courtesy blanking not revdeletion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief, people. I have gone ahead and revdel'd that entire section from the article talk page, and for a number of reasons. IMO, it's borderline oversightable, but it's been revdel'd. Admins can still see the content and the edit summaries are available to all. Firstly, personal information (phone numbers, etc) were posted. Secondly, certain people were making egregious unsourced allegations relating to the article subject. Not just allegations, but seriously damaging ones. Given this subject's career, these allegations could be seriously damaging to her career. Not only that, people in that category suffer a high risk of violence and death. While it's not our remit to deal with that issue, it certainly is when people post unsourced allegations of same. Note that GID is a recognized psychiatric disorder (your opinion may vary, but that's what the book says) which now puts us into even further BLP-vio territory. Using the flimsiest of sources, a liberal application of synthesis and a helping of original research, and you have a massive BLP issue. So yes, I've redacted it per policy after complaints were made to me via email in my capacity as an oversighter - Alison 20:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the right thing to do. Have the involved people been warned about BLP violations? People often forget that BLP applies to discussion pages too. We give a bit of leeway or it would be hard to have any kind of discussion there, but you can't make unsubstantiated allegations about an article subject even there. -- Atama頭 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with User:50.157.141.113

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

I think an admin needs to speak with User:50.157.141.113. I left a polite message regarding WP:V/WP:NOR on their talk page, and the editor responded with an extremely abusive message. I attempted to explain that incivility like this is not permitted, and can result in blocking, and the editor responded with an even more abusive message, and stated that he/she intended to engage in sockpuppetry if blocked. Nightscream (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pointy behaviour from Kwamikagami

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

Could someone tell Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) to stop his pointy behaviour?

On February 2, Kwamikagami made a series of edits which broke {{val}}. These were reverted, and {{val}} TE-protected. After it was TE-protected, Kwamikagami fork {{val}} into {{val2}}, and went on an AWB spree to replace the use of {{val}} in articles by {{val2}}. {{Val2}} was nominated for deletion pretty much right then and there, but he kept at it.

A side-discussion and edit war occured on WP:MOSNUM, mostly concerning the alignment of asymmetrical uncertainties (should the uncertainties in 1.00+0.11
−0.99 be aligned or not), and fought to introduce {{val2}} as a legit alternative to {{val}}. There is currently an RfC on that (Template talk:Val#RfC).

He has a very long history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Admin Callanecc warned him for his edit warring on MOSNUM . Kwamikagami re-edited the MOSNUM, and Callanec gave him two changes to self-revert , but he didn't.

Admin Mr. Stradivarius closed the {{val2}} deletion discussion and deleted/moved it to the sandbox. where before Kwamikagami's was to use AWB to convert {{val}} to {{val2}}, now he's going on an AWB rampage to change the use of {{val}} to {{+-}} ], claiming "MOS compliance". This is pointy behaviour of the highest order, and makes it a pain in the ass to maintain articles because whenever the RfC on val will close, we'll have to either go through Kwamikagami's edit history and mass revert him, or go on an AWB spree of our own to undo the damage.

Warn him, block him, I don't care, but please do something.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To sum up: I reverted *my own edits* resulting in no net change to the articles.

I had made a template change (from {{±}} to {{val2}}) to some articles I had been editing, a change for efficiency that had no effect on the formatting, which was already compliant with the MOS. (Cf. my initial change with the partial self-revert Headbomb linked to above. The restored part is where the later change to {{val}} had broken the formatting.) Headbomb got all upset, and had the template {{val2}} replaced with another, {{val}}, which was similar but resulted in the formatting of those articles no longer being compliant with the MOS, and frankly an eyesore. I then reverted my own edits so that the article format was once again compliant with the MOS, as it had been for years, resulting in no net change except for an invisible increase in the use of the template that Headbomb favors, as I only partially reverted myself. The end result is that, for the point Headbomb is contesting, the articles look now exactly as they did before I made the edits that Headbomb initially objected to. I have not done this to the articles Headbomb's been involved with. Perhaps Headbomb should be warned or blocked for making frivolous charges?

As for the change at MOSNUM, that's a warning to our editors that the template recommended to produce the recommended formatting does not actually produce the recommended formatting. Several admins have noted that the discrepancy is problematic. I am amenable to instead tagging the claim as 'dubious' or to any wording that any editor might think is better than my own, but no-one has bothered, nor has anyone seen fit to revert it. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Headbomb's put a lot of work into the template {{val}}, and it appears he's quite sensitive about it, to the point that he's been demanding that the MOS be changed to comply with his template, and that {{±}}, which is used in 25 times as many articles for the format in question, also be changed to match, rather than allowing even the *option* of user choice in the matter. He's welcome to his opinion, but he hardly has reason to get upset if I disagree. (As does nearly everyone else, for example an opinion that was just posted.) — kwami (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Aren't most templates and important functions supposed to be able to be typed on a standard engligh keyboard? How do you expect most users to type ± often? Hasteur (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

{{+-}}, {{-+}} and {{plusminus}} redirect to it. — Lfdder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Shift+alt/option+= on a standard Mac keyboard will do it without hassle. The somewhat more esoteric code on Windows is alt+(on the right-hand number pad) 241. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The pages that Kwami edited with AWB are ones that I switched from {{val2}} to {{val}} as part of my close of the TfD discussion yesterday. Given that Kwami was warned by Callannec for edit warring at the MOS on the 13th, it seems poor form to continue the same dispute by switching these pages to a different template. This should be settled at Template talk:Val, where there is already an RfC underway. If Kwami is willing to do that without further edit warring, then I don't think there is a need for any sanctions here.

  On an unrelated note, it would have been nice to have been notified about this discussion; it's a good job I decided to browse ANI this morning, because I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. Callanecc would have probably appreciated a ping as well. Also, "Admin Mr. Stradivarius" sounds far too formal. Just "Mr. Stradivarius" or "Strad" is fine. Or if you really have to put "admin" in there, I'd prefer that you at least make it "Admin, MedCom member, Lua coder and all-round nice guy Mr. Stradivarius". ;) — Mr. Stradivarius 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confused. He changed instances of val that used to be ± before he'd swapped in val2 back to ±. That seems perfectly legitimate to me. — Lfdder (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fail to see how reverting my own edits, because they fail to conform to the MOS, can be considered a problem. Headbomb did not like my creation of the template val2, and it was removed. I then undid my edits that used the now-defunct template. There is no edit war here. Based on your closure summary, I took your edits as a formality in retiring val2, not as a decision to push Headbomb's formatting, which had never appeared on these articles, against the MOS and the majority of editors who have commented. A neutral edit on your part would have been to return the articles to what they had been before I had changed them to the val2 template, and as part of assuming good faith, I assumed that that complications had simply not occurred to you. The alternative would be that you had joined in on one side of a debate that you had resolved to stay neutral of. — kwami (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I see - if the pages were previously using ± and not val, then that is certainly less objectionable. Of course, I assumed that val2 should simply be replaced with val, as it was a direct alternative. However, the best way to resolve this is through discussion, rather than switching articles from one formatting to the other. As there is an ongoing dispute over whether or not to use a monospace font in number formatting of this sort, it would make sense to leave all formatting of that kind alone until the dispute is resolved. Anything that switches one format to another, like converting val to ±, or editing the templates involved, is going to sour the atmosphere and make it that much harder to resolve things through calm and focused discussion. Your edits may not have broken the letter of the edit warring policy, but to abide by its spirit I think discussing those edits first would have been a better move. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're exactly right: We should not go around changing the formatting while it's under discussion. However, *I* did not change the formatting, *you* did! — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I assumed that val2 should be changed to val without being aware that the pages were previously formatted using ±. My edits to those articles were to prevent the red text Template:Val2 from appearing where the number should be, which is what would have happened otherwise after I moved val2 to Template:Val/sandbox2 without a redirect. If I had realised that the pages were formatted with ± previously, I probably would have returned them to that state instead. However, the problem here is not as simple as just a mistake in my close that your edits fixed; you have seen for yourself how Headbomb reacted when you moved the pages back to ±. My point is that the less drama-inducing course of action would have been to discuss the edits rather than revert them. I would have been happy to move them back to ± myself if you had let me know of my mistake on my talk page. In any case, we shouldn't dwell on this too much, as it is diverting our attention from resolving the main dispute. It would be best to focus our effort on Template talk:Val so that this can be dealt with definitively. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And he's still at it on MOSNUM. How much warning does one need before they start heeding them? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if we whip him? — Lfdder (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Please, let's keep this discussion focused on how to resolve the dispute. Suggestions like this are not helpful. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, everybody seemed a bit uptight, so I thought I'd lighten up the mood. Pardon me. — Lfdder (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really, Headbomb? We make a false statement on the MOS, and we can't tag it as a false statement while we discuss what to do about it? That's ludicrous. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'false statement' and there was already a note that this was under discussion. The dubious tag is just there because val doesn't conform to your personal tastes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the {{dubious}} template is redundant to the existing note - how about replacing them both with {{under discussion-inline}}? — Mr. Stradivarius 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like something that you should discuss over there. If kwami isn't getting warned, blocked (or whipped), this thread should be closed. — Lfdder (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I agree. If the tag really needs to be discussed, then it can be done at WT:MOSNUM, although personally I would concentrate on the main dispute rather than worrying about the tag. And with that we have run out of reasons to keep this thread open any longer, so I'll go ahead and close it. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to put a tag on the disputed text in the MOS, although in my experience discussion on the talk page without tagging is more common. If the statement must be tagged, might I suggest {{under discussion-inline}} as an alternative to {{dubious}}? I think it fits the context of the MOS example better. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts

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

Could an admin please rule on this contentious AFD. There appears to be a clear consensus, and closing it would put an end to all of the unruly behavior happening there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you feel that somebody's state of mind and health is unruly behavior!Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• What does anyone's health have to do with the notability of an article's subject? Misplaced Pages is not therapy, and we don't keep articles about non-notable people because of outside factors. BMK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• please do not turn this into another AFD discussion? This is not what my complaint is about. And STOP talking about my health as if bullying does not affect ones health. If you cared to read my complaint you would see what this is about. This is not an AFD discussion pageCowhen1966 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• This entry is about the AfD discussion. As long as you make responses which seem to be non sequitors, people are going to wonder what the heck you're talking about.

  (Also, please start a new comment on a new line, and indent using colons. One colon indents one tab, two colons indents 2 tabs, etc. By starting your new comment right behind the previous one, it does not start on a new line. By not indenting, all of your comments start at the left edge, which makes it hard to follow the thread of the discussion.)

  Finally, it was you, in your first comment here, who mentioned your health. If you don't want something discussed, don't bring it up in conversation. BMK (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again thanks BMK. Nice discussion on bullyingCowhen1966 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate that intervention has occurred in relationship to User:Cowhen1966 directly, I would like to point out that no admin has addressed my original concern/comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

AfDs are given a minimum of 7 days. By the time of the OP, the AfD had only been open for 6 days. An extra couple of days isn't going to hurt things or change the outcome. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Persistent bullying, harassment and endless threats

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

This is the second time that I am having to come on here to make a complaint. The first time, I withdrew my complaint because I did the decent thing and extended an olive branch to all those involved. But despite all attempts to calm the situation down which at times even involves me applying some humor to an aggravated situation, I am CONSTANTLY living in this nightmarish place of constant ridicule, bullying, harassment and endless threats. This has been going on for a while now and while I have stood up to the bullies many a time I think I now need this issue to be looked into very hastily. The last time I tried to lodge a complaint, I received a message asking me to try and sort it out on the editors talk pages. To be honest, short of me literally asking them to meet up so that we can discuss our differences over a cup of tea, I genuinely do not know what else I can do. I even stooped so low as to diss myself in order for this to stop. I have put a liitle essay-like article on my talk page which gives an insight to the state of my mind following these bullying tactics. I have DONE EVERYTHING only to be told that I "should stop playing the victim". These antics have gone on for so long that I have become like a schizophrenic. One minute I am cracking jokes, another minute I am tearing my hair out in anguish. I only came on wikipedia as a single-editor but now I don't know if it's been worth it at all. My aim was to stay since I loved creating the article and I wanted to be a part of some more projects but now I don't know anymore! How can people be allowed to carry on with this sort of behavior? Taking the mick out of your inexperience, taking a mick at an article you worked so hard to create, taking a mick at your identity. Just plain and simply taking a mick at the fact that youre a newbie. I did not put my article up for nomination but I do have the right to defend its ccredibility as an article without getting hounded and ridiculed. My talk page is constantly being hounded. Often times they come in the name of "peace, love and help". But minutes into the conversation you realise that they have a totally different agenda. Personally, this administrator who goes by the name dangerous panda has tried to right some wrongs because it is quite obvious that he nominated the article too hastily. His interaction with me have been confusing at best and threatening at worst. At times he comes across as if he wants to put the article back on AFC but instead of putting the question to me directly, he will offer it like he's only trying to help me and that he's doing me some sort of favour. I have had personal messages asking me about my username and that I work for the person whose article I created because I'm hiding my identity. They were even assuming my identity as being a man and all this was being discussed on my talk page. The last straw that broke the camels back was when a user who has been a constant presence on my page claimed to be offering me some friendly advice. The sarcasm was beyond belief and this time in quite a stern tone I practically tried to end the communication between us and any future ones he may be planning. You see, by this time I had had as much as I could take from this guy. Prior to that I had not actually been on his talk page to read about his mission or personal ethos on Misplaced Pages. But after our last interaction, I decided to find out who it was who kept on harassing me. It all began to make sense because this editor who goes by the name of Friday, claims to delete all "junk". Maybe that is why he is so sure that my article is going to be deleted. Because he is some expert on junk. As if that wasn't enough, he returns to the AFD discussion page to personally attack and ridicule the article I created. My responses are all on the page. But why this has now come to a header is that I am tired of panda constantly threatening that he will block me. I challenged him to do so but he hasn't. This is simply because he has no legs to stand on. But actually going ahead to block me or threatening me still goes down in my poor estimation of him anyway. My personal experience is that he operates on an intimidating " be afraid be very afraid of me mentallity" but that worked for a while until I was informed by some good people on here not to take any form of bullying. Not even from an administrator. Bullying is bullying whoever you are and it's not nice. I want this dealt with because I fear that he may block me because he can. I am done with the threats. If he wants to block me he should go ahead and do that. But if he has no grounds then he should leave well alone. I am really tired of this. I won't even go into the Religious pun and ridicule that Friday wrote on the AFD page because I think I made my point clear. But I would not want him to contact my page EVER AGAIN and if he does I will have to see how to stop him from coming on my page to harass and ridicule me. I have not been sleeping well because my e-mail keeps alerting me of constant activities on my page. I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Misplaced Pages may have its first case of suicide. I have informed my family in the unlikely event that something happens to me. I have taken shots of all my pages, e-mails, AFD discussion and talk page. Practically EVERYTHING. Please let this STOP !!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anyone is going to read your wall of text. If you expect volunteer editors to take time out of their day to help you resolve a problem, respect their time and effort enough to write out a concise complaint that provides evidence in the form of diffs and specific violations—not a 1080p paragraph-less screed. Nformation 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to provide diff. All I can do is write articles. Does that mean that my complaint should be treated any differently?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I am not disrespecting anybody's time. I am simply reporting bullying and harassment so if no one can do anything on here please let me knowCowhen1966 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) is the wall of text an essay I also think its referring to articles? The essay also says that sometimes by reducing the text you may miss out on important facts. Please show me the Misplaced Pages guidelines on putting a complaint up on the administrators notice board. It might tell me exactly what to do?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

HI, Cowhen! I'm not an adminstrator or anything. I'm just nothing. But, I sympathize with your frustration, and ALSO, what you feel as a lack of ability to help other editors to see DIRECTLY what you complain about. Now, I have an offer: Place a single complaint, one after the other, on MY Talk Page; link to the page in question for each complaint! Then, together, we can formulate a criticism of what you have experienced, and that I also think should be reported. If WE two (I don't think we have any meetings from before??) might disagree on whether or not it should be reported, we discuss it on my talk page first. Ok with you?Arildnordby (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I felt saddened about how you feel about, and have been received at Misplaced Pages. I want to be a sympathetic and friendly face for you, because from your message, I feel you need that type of support. Don't feel any sort of obligation to list your specific complaints in some sort of objective hierarchy, just post on my Talk Page point after point. I will do my best to be a friendly, supportive voice here.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cowhen1966 - You could start by saying who the editor is who you feel is bullying you. Then, the place or places where the supposed bullying is happening. Leave out your personal feelings and just provide the facts. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Having made a minuscule, wholly insufficient check, I believe that this is how the editor who made the complaint feels about, in particular, the AfD nomination of his Cecil Jay Roberts article. But, there might be lots of other instances here the editor feels have been totally bullying in tone.Arildnordby (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I, too, looked at his talk page, and the AfD, and in the course of that reading, I've seen Cowhen1966 accuse a number of editor of harrassing or bullying him -- pretty much anyone who did anything that Cowhen1966 didn't like, such as posting a warning template on his talk page, or nominating his article for deletion. Throughout the discussions that I've read, Cowhen1966 has shown a lack of knowledge of Misplaced Pages processes. There's nothing wrong with that, but when he's been corrected or help has been attempted, Cowhen1966 had shown an unwillingness or inability to learn, and an intransigence which, on the AfD, gets close to being tendentious and disruptive. Editors have sincerely tried to help, but have been met with "I didn't hear that" behavior.

From what I've seen, unless Cowhen1966 provides something specific, there has been no bullying or harassment, simply normal Misplaced Pages processes at work. BMK (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread involving Cowhen1966 . AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it you haven't been on my talk page then? Read the piece I put up on there about bullying. Even then I didn't know I would end up here again. And no this isn't about the article I created. It started there then it all became dark and nasty. Mind games, insinuations, ridicule etc. you are wrong if you think this is about some beady page I created. I just believe in standing up to bullies. Something I have shied away from in the past. And yes I have explained here on this page to some detail what has transpired over the last couple of weeks. If I was to write everything, it would fill an encyclopedia. Literally.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you explain nothing. You do talk a lot about your feelings, but there are no details in this report about the person you're accusing and the specific events you are referring to. We cannot get into your skin, and cannot feel your emotions, so you must provide specific facts for the admins to make a determination on. I see none of that. You're asking for action, you must provide the evidence of the need for it. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I AGREE, BMK, that as yet, it is really difficult for us outside editors to find ourt about this, That is WHY I offer my help, and ear, to Cowhen, so that he can calmly explain in his own way to me various grievances. We really should remember that lots of technical expertise is involved being editors at Misplaced Pages, and some might feel that can't "break that particular code". So, that will be one of my ambitions if Cowhen chooses to talk with me, to formulate what we two will agree upon are grievances to be dealt with at ANI.Arildnordby (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope that Cowhen1966 takes advantage of your offer. BMK (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I give him personally, on my Talk Page, the benefit of the doubt, but NOT here. I am sympathetic towards him, and if I really feal that untoward behaviour towards this editor hads happened, or that an UNDUE AfD proceeds agains Cecil Jay Roberts, I'll retutn to fight. But, I won't do that, unledss Cowhen goes onto my Talk Page (me being a neutral observer), we talk together, and find what our commo ground is. I'll certainly not demand an inclusion on Misplaced Pages of what I regard as a NON-notable article, but there are lots of articles being at Misplaced Pages SOMEBODY might declare non-notable. It alkl depends, relative to MY OWN offer, how Cowhen chooses to respond to meArildnordby (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you you're very kind. But I have done what Misplaced Pages says we should do after all attempts at reconciliation fails. If this does not achieve that goal which I hope it will, then I will simply move to the next step. I won't respond to anything with regards to the article for deletion page because I know an IMPARTiAL decision will be made. And well, if one cannot be made, then I shall cross that bridge when I get there. But for now I welcome the fact that I have reported for the second time this time in greater detail what I have been subjected to for the past couple of weeks or soCowhen1966 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The person closing the AfD will not make an independent determination of what is "right" or "wrong", because that is not their job. What they will do is determine what the consensus is of the editors who have posted comments. For this reason, at this time, the only way the AfD is going to be closed is with the deletion of the article, because you are the only one arguing for keeping it, eveyone else (including myself) has !voted "Delete". If you think there is going to be another outcome, you're fooling yourself, at least as things stand right now. BMK (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen: There is NO DEADLINE at Misplaced Pages!! That will ALSO, possibly, work to your advantage. If. for example, we two talk together, and I find out that either a) You have been unfairly treated or b) Your article is unfairly deleted, I am in my perfect right to demand reopening of issues. Please talk to me, I've left an explanatory message on your own Talk Page.Arildnordby (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BMKCowhen1966 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to comment on my talkpage only, but I have decided that the information below is germane to the entire thread.

It's unfortunate that every time anyone gives Cowhen a piece of advice they don't like, they refer to it as "harassment" or "bullying" (see previous ANI thread noted above). Unfortunately, asking someone to simply read the policies they agreed to and actually follow the simplest of guidelines is neither harassment nor bullying. It's also bizarre that suggesting "this article looks like it was written by the subject" is somehow an accusation that they need to defend themself against - it's not. I think I've even been accused of acting without a neutral POV ... a laughable, unprovable claim - indeed, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

The simple fact is that there are at least a half-dozen respected editors (let's remove me from that grouping for a moment) who have tried to patiently and politely guide them in the right direction, but Cowhen insists and persist that they'll do things their way, according to their interpretation...or else.

If they have "threatened suicide", this would be unfortunate - this shows that they're far too attached to this subject, and should logoff and go for a walk - nothing on the internet should pick at one's psyche in such a way as to cause that feeling. We all have the ability to control how the internet affects us: turn it off.

As to this ANI itself, I'm not sure why I was notified: my name doesn't appear here. There are no diffs nor any evidence that I have bullied or harassed anyone - and if anyone on the planet reviews either the AFD or my edits to the editor's talkpage quite the opposite will be visible.

My "informal" and wholly detached reading is this: just like thousands of other editors in the past, we have an editor who wrote a reallllllllyyyy poor article, one that doesn't even appear to meet basic standards. We all know happens hundreds of times a day. Most editors happily take constructive criticism and develop into good editors in the long run. Those who are wholly unwilling to depersonalize and charge forward making wild accusations are eventually blocked. Hell, I've written crap articles that don't exist anymore either, and defended them ... up to a point. User:Cowhen1966 has actually been treated far more gently than almost all of those most persistent editors, but doesn't respond well to polite critique. It would be a shame to see them self-destruct in this manner.

If User:Cowhen1966 had an issue with me, they were required to address me directly. I disengaged from their talkpage after spending a number of hours holding their hand and moving them forward - only to be attacked. I have remained engaged on the AFD solely because I started it, and have since found that they have turned it into a farce. They should read one or two previous AFD's to see exactly how to participate in a community discussion.

I'm not sure how much more can be given to an editor who refuses to help themself. The possible way forward for Cowhen is to get a mentor - but it will need to be one with a thick skin, because history has shown that they'll be attacked on a regular basis. DP 10:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've mentored a few editors who had problems (with mixed success, though I like to think I helped somewhat in each case) and I'm a pretty patient person but with no offense to Cowhen1966 (who seems to be acting in good faith with a sincere intent to improve the encyclopedia) I wouldn't know where to begin. They are treating every piece of advice with suspicion, and responding to a number of attempts to help with outright hostility. I don't think that this is just an issue where an editor doesn't understand Misplaced Pages's processes, I think this is an issue where an editor has an inability or unwillingness to assume good faith from anyone. That combative mentality will never work on this project. It's a shame but I can't see a constructive way forward for Cowhen1966. -- Atama頭 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I am pretty disappointed with the ANI process and in all of you. An editor comes here to complain about bullying, clearly frustrated at the lack of action by anyone and they get blocked for their trouble. If any of you looked at the users edit history and talk page you could clearly see the bullying going on and by what users they were being harassed. But clearly none of you took the time. Typical and ridiculous! 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Kumioko. It was certainly a huge failure of ANI that after a week of several editors attempting to help this person, they refused to heed advice, and based on many of the talk page discussions, easily turned on anyone who tried to lend assistance. While I see that you are starting to aim for maximum disruption with your trolling, I'm not sure this was the best case for you to try and make a WP:POINT with. Resolute 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a thought Resolute. Maybe if you weren't always so negative and always putting me down calling me troll every chance you get, maybe I would actually listen to you. As it is though, I have no respect for you outside your ability to write good FA articles. Your bedside manner is sorely lacking. As far as the case at hand goes, I agree the user does have some room for improvement but I also see where he was constantly getting messages over every edit. That is very frustrating and having had that happen to me I can completely see where the editor is coming from. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who trolls every conversation attempting to make it into a big disruptive circus that causes nothing to get done and nothing to get better, even the stuff he would like to see fixed. If you haven't figured it out, your actions alone have messed your situation up. Stop trolling and people will stop calling you a troll. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

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

I have to agree with Atama, and therefore I propose a week's block, to be most likely followed by an indefblock if there's no improvement in Cowhen's embattled attitude. I'm putting a block on the table in particular because I've seen Cowhen argue with some triumph on the AfD of his article that he can't have been making personal attacks, because he hasn't been blocked: "If this a personal attack why haven't I been blocked? After all I have had many warmings." Why haven't you been blocked, Cowhen? It's not because you haven't been making personal attacks and assuming an unacceptable amount of bad faith, because you have. The reason you haven't been blocked is because you're new, and administrators have been leaning over backwards to be nice to you and not bite, just as other experienced users have been doing. But if blocks are the only arguments that you're prepared to take on board — not explanations, not olive branches, not warnings — then I guess there's nothing else to do but block you.

Please note that the block I propose is not intended to inhibit communication between Cowhen and Arildnordby. Such communication can just as well take place on Cowhen's page as on Arild's, and might indeed have a better chance if Cowhen can focus on that page, and no longer feels obliged to post to defend himself all over various boards.

Proposed: a one-week block for personal attacks and battling.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
• Support per my words above (the inability to AGF) and per their own words that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior. -- Atama頭 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the recipient of a number of Cowhen's attacks, and in response to his many attacks on those who sincerely tried to help him. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support I've been thinking of this for a while, both because of the clear problems they have in interacting with people, but also because of WP:competence issues, particularly since they haven't shown any sign of improving and their problems interacting make it seem unlikely there's much hope for improvement. That said, I also support only a limited block for now so the 1 week is fine. The AFD should hopefully be done by then. They may come back and try a deletion review (which I think they suggested they would do) or otherwise make a big fuss, but I hope not. I know they denied any connection to the subject but I finally decided to check the remaining image (which I asked them to put up for deletion a few hours ago), and confirmed neither Google Image search nor TinEye find it anywhere else despite apparently showing the subject in his early years. So despite my desire to WP:AGF, I do wonder. I'm hoping that Cowhen1966 will be less emotive if it's clear that the article is deleted and not coming back (as I expect from the AFD) and they will then move on to working on other things. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support a limited block to concentrate the mind. Nothing else seems to have worked. However, I very much doubt that he will continue editing here once the article is deleted. Even if it were kept, it is highly unlikely he would contribute to anything but that. From my experience, that level of desperation, aggression, and tendentious editing at an AfD is fairly typical of people who have a very close and personal connection to the article's subject. Someone should also close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts now. It's been running for over 7 days. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I have read through the blocks of text above by Cowhen1966 and his comments on the AfD. I think as a new editor, he is a bit overwhelmed and doesn't quite see yet that it takes time and effort to understand Misplaced Pages policies. Some people get it more quickly than others. I notice that his editing has decreased, so he may be pausing on his own to think about what has happened. I think we should avoid block if possible, since this would be interpreted by him as bulling. Ultimately, if he continues along this path, I would favor blocking but I think we should wait a bit. I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: A block would certainly feed into Cowhen's perception of being persecuted. However, he's already seeing conspiracies behind every bush, so this would not be a new problem. I also share Voceditenore's suspicion that this editor will disappear after their article does. Friday (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the consensus here, I applied a one-week block, which should at the very least prevent additional disruption to the AFD until it's closed. This comment seems a pretty strong confirmation that they intend to continue their attacks and wild accusations unless blocked. The 'I'm a newbie' excuse doesn't really carry much weight when the problem is extreme and unprovoked personal attacks--it's not as though those are acceptable elsewhere either. Given the number of people who've attempted to reach out with kindness only to have it thrown back in their face, I don't think more of that is likely to help, but I won't discourage anyone from trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously I support your block but you might want to let them know on their own talk page why they were blocked, what the duration is, what they can do about it, and so on (whether by template or otherwise). Not meaning to nitpick but it's only fair. I'd have left a template myself but I think it would be less confusing if you did so, as the blocking administrator. -- Atama頭 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• A very good point. I left a message. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. While Cowhen1966 has issues with comprehension and assuming good faith, I feel that a block of any length is counterproductive, and even if you disagree a week is massive overkill. - Jorgath (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Torn If you want to block for personal attacks, go ahead. If you want to block to prevent further disruption on the AFD, go ahead. If you want to indef block, and only accept an unblock with conditions of a) strict civility parole, b) mentorship, and c) a topic ban from Mr Roberts, then I'm all in favour of that. I might even go for c) alone, if asked nicely DP 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Overly restrictive ambitions here I have NO opinions on justifications of currently imposed blocks herr, but I really think it is sad to see other editors rooting for indefinite blocks already. That is really premature, IMOArildnordby (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't understand the difference between "infinite" (forever) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced the behaviours will not recur)? DP 00:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't see though, why one should root for even the indefinite (rather than permanent/infinite) block as a desired goal, without bothering to wait for the result of the actually imposed time-limited block.Arildnordby (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you guarantee he won't pull any of the same crap after a week is done? If not, then indef + conditions on unblock is actually the most sensible way forward to guarantee non-recurrence, and very standard DP 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any guarantees. He haven't even responded with any specific discussable posts yet, as per my invitation, although he has expressed genuine gratitude. I just feel that threats about indefinite blockings that some editors seem enthusiastic about issuing, isn't due- Yet.Arildnordby (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That tells me you're still confusing it with "infinite" DP 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, Seems Cowhen's been offered help & advice yet seems to ignore or doesn't understand, Perhaps a weeks block might actually help.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reading through the AFD (in its almighty entirety) and their talk page (what a mess). DP, Atama and Bishonen sum up the problem nicely. Seeing a new editor it's important to grant them some leeway, however seeing how many spoons have been brought in to feed Cowhen1966 it is getting to the point of "AGF isn't a suicide pact". In fact, I have nothing but respect for those who have tried repeatedly to help Cowhen1966 except it's time to cut one's losses. Blackmane (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to close

The OP has been blocked for a week, and their claims to having been bullied or harassed have been examined by a number of editors, who found no evidence to support them - instead, the OP has been misinterpreting warnings and attempts to help as personal attacks. There would seem to be nothing left to do here except wait to see how the editor behaves when they return from their block. BMK (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bigpoliticsfan yet again

Despite twice being the subject of recent ANI threads (19th Jan 18th Feb ) it seems that Bigpoliticsfan has totally failed to take note of what has been said regarding inappropriate speedy deletion and similar issues. Bigpoliticsfan has just nominated the Tommy Oliver article for speedy deletion as CSD 11 "obviously invented", despite the article being ten years old, with multiple contributors and multiple cited sources. - an utterly ridiciulous nomination, and one that I frankly find incomprehensible. The problem isn't just with speedy deletion nominations either - Bigpoliticsfan has also just tagged our article on Alison Lundergan Grimes with {{lead rewrite}}, {{lead too long}}, {{peacock}} and {{recentism}} tags for no legitimate reason whatsoever, as a cursory inspection of the article will show. I raised these edits at User talk:Bigpoliticsfan, but as usual, the response was a vague apology with no real explanation, and the same old promises that litter the talk page for every prior complaint. (see also this ridiculous tag-fest for another example of cluelessness ) It seems self-evident to me that Bigpoliticsfan simply lacks the competence to edit Misplaced Pages, and rather than waste further time with another round of apologies and worthless promises, we should block this time-wasting 'contributor' indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we definitely have a problem, having looked at their last 40 or so edits I see several problems in addition to the above - this probably shouldn't have been wholesale reverted, at least without a better edit summary, I can't see how the lead is too long in this and I have my doubts about some of the other tags, here the pages do exist, here it did open in 1900 and the edit summary is, at best, unclear, similarly here, I've no idea what the editor intended but it wasn't vandalism here and although possible inappropriate it wasn't vandalism here. That's a disturbing high percentage of problematic edits, especially given the previous discussions. I would be interested in their response - hopefully longer than their last one here - before proceeding further. Dpmuk (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, the main content of Tommy Oliver comes under the heading "Fictional character history". Fiction! Fiction is obviously invented, that's what makes it fiction, geddit? No? Oh well. And Alison Lundergan Grimes, well, er, I give up. Looks like a pattern of gross, energetic and time-wasting incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only had one "interaction" with the editor. I noticed this edit described in the edit summary as "Rv factual errors." However:

• It wasn't a factual error, in fact the edit being discussed was correcting an error
• Bigpoliticsfan didn't revert, but (incorrectly) removed the entire entry
• I asked the editor User_talk:Bigpoliticsfan#Recent_edit for an explanation, but was ignored. In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"In light of other observations, this seems to fit a pattern of an editor who at best is sloppy." My thoughts exactly. Based on warnings on their user talk page, Bigpoliticsfan has repeatedly jumped into one area or another and moved quickly and recklessly, in such a manner as to inadvertently cause disruption. From adding speculative information before it could be sourced, to asking for page protection when it wasn't needed, to making comments at WP:RFPP when they shouldn't be (non-admin comments are generally discouraged), to making "drive-by" good article nominations, to tagging BLPs for BLPPROD deletion when they already had references, to inappropriately tagging CSDs, and then most recently for becoming an anti-vandal but reverting people mistakenly, removing information accidentally, and calling good faith edits vandalism.

I really appreciate the enthusiasm of Bigpoliticsfan, their good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, and their willingness to admit that they made mistakes. But how many times can an editor say that they're going to be more careful before we stop believing them? I wish there was a technical way to force this editor to slow down, because I feel like if there was, they could be a net benefit. But in the absence of such tools, I think that this editor needs to make a dramatic behavioral change or we can't allow them to participate here anymore. Even good faith efforts can't be allowed when they accidentally cause disruption over and over again. This editor has been here for 8 months, has been warned repeatedly, has been to ANI repeatedly, and hasn't shown any sign that they have changed. Even if they stop this anti-vandal patrolling, I'm afraid they'll just move to another area where they will make mistakes and cause problems, as that has been their history thus far. -- Atama頭 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be open to a request to try mentorship.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

UBM / 149.254.*.*

Hi.

I am not sure if I should report this to WP:RPP, WP:ANEW or WP:AIV but this is definitely disruptive editing.

UBM is a dab page that disambiguates between UBM plc and United Beach Missions. Now, United Beach Missions is deleted sometimes in 2011, so the proper action is to convert the dab page to a redirect to the only existing item, UBM plc. The problem is a guest user from the IP range of 149.254.0.0 reverting the change on the pretext that he thinks the deletion of United Beach Missions was "unjustified". Seems to me a sign of being a fan of United Beach Missions, or something to that effect, who tries to maintain vestiges of a deleted subject in Misplaced Pages.

Nevertheless, justified or not, keeping a red in disambiguation page serves no purpose. (Yes, having red links are allowed under certain conditions such as the prospect having a notable article, but I am not sure it has merit here.) Please advise.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, looks like Barek redirected the page, it violates Misplaced Pages:DAB. Epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And next time, WP:ANEW is the best place to put reports of edit-warring like this (though it didn't break 3 revert rule just yet — the talk page should have been used instead). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Er... are you referring to a talk page that he does not see due to his IP constantly changing? Look, you are more than welcome to correct me, but the last two times that I did it, it felt like such a waste of time. I ended up reporting them anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a user talk page (I should have been more clear), but the page's talk page. A referral to the talk page can be in one edit summary, and if the IP user doesn't use the talk page and continues reverting after three reverts, then they should be reported to ANEW. Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP is back today, so I have protected the page for a week and will watch-list. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Slanderous vandalism at Nigella Lawson

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

I have just reverted some really nasty vandalism at the Nigella Lawson article. I think it should be removed from the history too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I REVDEL'd two edits correctly DP 09:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 71.23.178.214

I've blocked 71.23.178.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeatedly violating consensus by putting the template {{CongLinks}} into "Further reading", rather than the "External links" section where it belongs, mostly with comment "dmoz". Further thought suggests that, since I was in favor of deletion of CongLinks, I might be considered "involved". Since this covers over 100 edits in the past week, and blocks of 15 per hour, I think immediate action is required.

As I'm not on very often, I won't take offense if others revert this action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I view this block as preventive, since the IP from Chicago posted a statement on Ronz' talk page about how consensus has not been reached on the CongLinks template. To me, this seemed to be a statement of intent to continue pushing the CongLinks template into "Further reading", which would be disruptive. At Template talk:CongLinks#CongLinks is not 'Further reading', the IP and I were going back and forth over the issue, with Ronz weighing in with me against the IP to make it two against one. Note that the IP's arguments were all over the map rather than focusing on what should go in the "External links" section. Arthur Rubin recently offered his CongLinks-as-external-links view to make it three against one.

The IP was carrying out the intended changes hidden under the guise of "dmoz" edit summaries, for instance here, so that makes this block appropriate. We need to get a statement from the IP recognizing that consensus is against CongLinks in "Further reading". I recommend that such a statement be requested as a condition of unblock. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As a second, uninvolved admin opinion, I think this was an appropriate block. -- Atama頭 17:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Anarchistdy

Could somebody please block Anarchistdy (talk · contribs)? This editor has been edit-warring at Rosie Huntington-Whiteley to advertise someone's funeral (example), in spite of having been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and has just left a pile of trolling on my talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was puzzled at first, trying to figure out what the deal was with the funeral announcement. But then I realized that it was an attempt to use text from an obituary as a source to support information about the subject's grandmother (to support information that was already present in the article). So I don't see it as disruptive editing or vandalism, and while I understand why you'd leave a disruptive editing notice (because it's puzzling behavior) I don't think the template you left was appropriate. The responding template left on your user talk page was poor communication, but I see it as a tit-for-tat response showing that the template you left was inappropriate.

The edit-warring is not ideal behavior, but the editor hasn't violated 3RR (in fact, I count a total of 2 reverts in a 24-hour period there, which isn't particularly excessive). And at least one of those reverts is done in an appeal to WP:BLP because they dispute that the ethnicity of the subject's grandmother is verified by a reliable source. The best course of action is to take this dispute to a discussion, either at the editor's talk page or (ideally) at the article talk page, something that you have failed to do. You deserve a trout at the least for reverting, leaving a template, then taking the issue all the way to ANI without once even attempting to actually talk to the other person like a human being first. -- Atama頭 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise funerals. The editor had been warned a few weeks ago regarding the same issue, as you can see on their talk. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "advertising" a funeral. The funeral took place in November 2012, well over a year ago. It was, however, an inappropriate source (a forum on Google Groups). Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. The funeral wasn't a random person's funeral, it was a funeral for the subject's grandmother. And this isn't even a non sequitur, it was being used as a reference for information that already existed in the article that mentioned her grandmother. I'm not arguing that the reference is appropriate, nor am I arguing that the format (especially the inclusion of the entire transcript) was done correctly. But it's not disruptive editing, or spamming, or anything else that you're alleging. The fact that you hadn't taken the time to verify this before making an accusation is bad enough, but the fact that you've dismissed the explanation and asked whether I'm serious is worse. You need to collaborate with other editors, and you cannot communicate with people exclusively through edit summaries, templates, and noticeboards. Communication, collaboration, and consensus is the foundation of this encyclopedia. Not to sound preachy, but really these are fundamentals and it's easy to lose track of them when you're involved in a dispute, but it's important that you at least make the effort to communicate before bringing this to administrators to enforce conduct policies. -- Atama頭 20:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, since it hasn't been said before, falsely accusing people of vandalism is itself disruption, so you need to take more care next time before leaving vandalism templates on another editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Iraag

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

Could an Admin please block Iraag (talk · contribs). He has twice nominated Jeffrey Altheer for Speedy Deletion when it's not eligible as I've explained to him already and posted a fake block notice on my Talk page. Does not have the competence to be here. JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With the reference to JMHamo (talk · contribs). I apologize if I've committed a mistake. But one thing I would like to mention that the article Jeffrey Altheer, which I nominated for speedy deletion does not have sufficient contents. Before blocking me please review the Jeffrey Altheer article and if I've violated any wikipedia policy then do block me. Iraag (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Iraag: your speedy tag at Jeffrey Altheer was 100% incorrect. The article is notable and sufficient as a stub, it simply needs updating which I intend to do later this evening.

@JMHamo: did this really have to come to ANI so quickly? GiantSnowman 17:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, it didn't come here very quickly in relation to how quickly the user posts. Iraag's machine-gun speed editing, crazed ANI nominations, strange templates on userpages (especially this one), strange speedy tags (especially this one) and generally excessive postings on usertalk pages are disruptive and either trollish or (more likely) incompetent. And what's this, a threat of further template harassment.. ? I'm not sure. Here he asks five different users in the space of five minutes to create the same article for him: . I've merely dipped a toe in the contributions. If anybody can persuade the user to type less fast and think twice before hitting save, maybe they can learn, but I'm frankly tempted to block. What do you think should be done, GiantSnowman — mentoring? Bishonen | talk 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

I'll add a bit from recent rather typical post, one of several on AndyTheGrump's talkpage: "It's like you are jealous with writing of my articles as you have restored all many articles and even nominated some for speedy deletion. Please don't forget you are only a Admin not the developer or the owner of Misplaced Pages." If nobody has any objection or anything else to suggest, I do intend to block, even though I believe they mean well. Competence is required. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Mentoring could be an option - though I don't have the time to do so - but failing that, a CIR block may well be warranted. GiantSnowman 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from everything else, I don't think that Iraag's skills in the English language are sufficient for him to be a useful contributor - this post makes no sense at all until you realise that he thinks 'restore' means 'delete'. As for 'meaning well', at least one of the references for the Isrg Rajan article (which I'm sure was autobiographical) was completely bogus - a link to this page , which contains 'ISRG' as a NASDAQ identifier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That reference is telling, Andy; if it's well-meant, I guess it suggests a WP:CIR abyss. I'd be surprised if anybody else is prepared to take on mentoring the user either, GS, but I'll leave this open for a few more hours in case of further commentary. Meanwhile it's rather striking that Iraag has continued the disruptive editing after he posted in this thread 24 hours ago. Examples: the post on Andy's page I quoted just above, and (this just in) the recreation yet again of an article redirected per per AfD. I don't know if he's not watching ANI, or just not getting what's been said beyond the Jeffrey Altheer speedy-tagging issue. Ping, Iraag! Bishonen | talk 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

First of all I would like to thank each of you for bringing my mistake or the contributions in light. Well, earlier I nominated Jeffrey Altheer for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy:A2 where Jeffrey Altheer is already existing in nl:Jeffrey Altheer. One thing I would like mention that Ping, AndyTheGrump has raised many issues in my editing/ contribution but he haven't discussed with me about any of my article rather he nominated for speedy deletion Isrg Rajan or redirected Chirag Paswan to other article. As well as he have not consider 4 valid references out of 5 references added by me under the article Isrg Rajan (now deleted/nominate by me) and made another issue by taking one of invalid reference. Sir, you all are welcomed to block me and yes! I've no problem as I am a volunteer on Misplaced Pages as like you all. Thanks!! Ping, Bishonen, Iraag (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Iraag (talk · contribs) is being disruptive on purpose, and I am going to AGF on his edits, but he definitely needs to take some time to read about the basics before he does any further editing. If his strange behaviour continues, then I think a block is appropriate. I will leave him a message on his Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, an WP:RFB at this time (now removed) is not helpful to AGF. Leaky Caldron 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm . I support a block if it comes to it. Very erratic behaviour. JMHamo (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Erratic, yes. Let's not drag this out any longer. I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

There was a previous proposal for a six month topic ban for both User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8

Mallexikon filed a malformed Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 which included unsupported claims. See this diff and see the comment by User:Jmh649 (Doc James) at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Outside view by Jmh649 .28Doc James.29.

Middle 8 endorsed an unsupported claim of skewing the facts but has since not withdrawn the claim.

Editors voiced their displeasure with the unsupported claim made by both Middle 8 and Mallexikon. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim both of you made against me at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias. The evidence is against both of you. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me. Middle 8 accused QuackGuru of IDHT-ing on misreading Middle 8's edits but the claim by Middle 8 is not supported by the evidence. I did not misread the diffs. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by IRWolfie-. Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim in that thread.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me in another thread. Middle 8 accused me of IDHT again without supporting evidence. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Section break. Middle 8, please withdraw your repeated unsupported claims.

Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up. I explained it in my edit summary this was discussed before. But Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up against consensus again. There was a discussion about the details in a recent RfC. The following text was part of the RfC I started: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

I recently explained again on the talk page the extreme details about the set-up is undue weight and is not typically found in other articles. The closing admin wrote "RFC sample size could be greater, but only 1 real !vote for the greater information. The lesser level of information avoids getting into WP:MEDRS violating WP:COATRACK. If the trials themselves are notable the article should be about the trials, not the acupuncture results." See Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:39 moving articles to their titles with the word temp in parentheses

See User 39 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what this seemingly relatively new user is doing, but it is WP:Disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post something similar when I saw him move two grape articles Rotberger (temp) and Gouais blanc (temp). This is very bewildering and looks like trolling. Would appreciate some admins breaking out the mop and bucket for this mess. Agne/ 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually my link was for User 38 while Flyer22 posted for User 39. Looks like an even bigger mess now. Agne/ 18:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a similar thread on AN about a User 47. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Agne27 (Agne), I first noticed the editor with this move. Anyway, I see that DrKiernan blocked him or her two minutes after my report on this matter. Now it's time to clean up the user's massive mess.

Interesting, Kyohyi; likely the same user.Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the same jerk; seems to have some kind of bot to do this on a mass basis in a few seconds. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mapswhets2 (talk · contribs)
• User 38 (talk · contribs)
• User 47 (talk · contribs)

All appear involved. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_47_moving_pages_without_good_reason. They've also found 32, 33, 34, 39, 40, and 46. These discussions should probably be combined. There's still a huge clean up needed. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they could be easily reverted via movepages.py + bash, poke me if needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN discussion and invited comment here; as this is clearly a wider issue it seems more suitable for ANI. GiantSnowman 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• From what it looks like, all of the pagemoves have been reverted for User 38 (talk · contribs). Anyone mind nuking the remnants? Cloudchased (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vituzzu, because this user moved the articles on a massive scale with some kind of tool, it'll be easier and quicker if administrators or other editors with such tools revert this user; administrator Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) is already on the job. There are also probably some moves that require administrative assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I was also on it but since you already had local resources to fulfil the task I'm no longer needed then :D --Vituzzu (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Once the job is done, anyone mind cleaning up the mess that I inadvertently left behind by pressing some big, scary buttons? Non-admin page moves left the redirects behind. :/ Cloudchased (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Although now blocked, there are still some of the residual XXXXXX (temp) files inserted by User:User 38 that need to be snuffed. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a real problem, as well the pesky vandal knows. We can cover the cracks (as some of us have tried to do by moving those articles back), but unless someone can point me to a quick way of doing it, this vandal will always have the upper hand if he can move a dozen articles per minute. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/User 47 for the full list (9 accounts) after checkuser. Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Is there someway of stopping any user from moving more than say, 10 pages per minute, unless they're an approved bot? I can't see any real reason why any human user would move more than one page every 6 or so seconds. Lugnuts 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• How did the guy manage to move the pages without being autoconfirmed? WP:MOVE says that users have to be autoconfirmed in order to move pages. Deor (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My understanding is there that is a page move throttle for new users, but these accounts made a bunch of sandbox edits and waited a couple of weeks in order to bypass the new user filter. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Clearly, someone with knowledge about Misplaced Pages policies is gaming the system to cause widespread disruption. This stuff annoys me. :( -- Atama頭 20:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• The checkusers and stewards are looking into this problem. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pages have been moved back to their proper places - in some cases without leaving a redirect, in others the redir has been deleted separately. Unfortunately, sometimes the double-redir-fix bots got there first so there is more cleanup needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

All the page moves have been reverted, and all of the redirects that were sometimes left behind at the "(temp)" names have been deleted. I don't know about the state of the redirs that became broken by good-faith bot edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I got all the broken redirects due to AvicBot's good-faith edits, but someone may want to double-check. Paul Erik 04:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the bot's contribs yesterday, and yeah, everything looks to be reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism even on high speeds is really nothing new, but I prefer administrators to do this job because they have the suppressredirect right. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: You linked to a user page that was deleted more than seven years ago; although registered, that user has neither contribs nor deleted contribs - what is the relevance? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, changed the link above. It may not be obvious from logs and deleted contributions, but there was a history there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin Smartse!

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

Any other admin over Misplaced Pages please inform Admin User:Smartse! for cancelling the speedy deletion nomination of the article Isrg Rajan as I've added many reliable secondary resources such as newspaper, web etc. for the references but still the admin nominated my article for speedy deletion. Iraag (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

And then you blanked the article which technically would allow it to be speedily-deleted per the G7 criterion. -- Atama頭 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Iraag:, this is the second time today your speedy deletions have been raised at ANI - see also #User:Iraag - are you aware of WP:BOOMERANG? If you don't know how to properly apply CSD to articles then you should not be doing so at all. GiantSnowman 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, last time I nominated a article for the speedy deletion but this time the last editor has took revenge by nominating my article for deletion and appealing other admins to delete my articles. thanks for your help tc. Iraag (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - the second speedy deletions involving you have been brought to ANI. Firstly your over-zealous tagging of the Jeffrey Altheer article, and now this. GiantSnowman 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The article in question was about a 19-year-old with no credible claim to notability. 'Revenge' has nothing to do with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I must be some kind of wizard because someone deleted the article per G7 4 minutes after my comment. -- Atama頭 20:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Atama, you qualify for wizard-ship.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Right-wing socialism

There has been a long standing split tag on Right-wing socialism. The discussion had stalled, so I raised an RfC in order to resolve the issue. I deliberately stayed out of the discussion so that I could be neutral. Everything has been civilised right up until the robot removed the RfC tag. Believing WP:RFC and WP:ANRFC allowed me to close the discussion I did so. I was immediately reverted by one of the participants, so I notified WP:ANRFC. user:Keithbob closed the RfC today ] and was reverted immediately ] by user:Collect. I do not believe either Keithbob or I have acted contrary to the process and it appears that collect intends to edit war with anyone who closes the RfC contrary his preference. Any assistance that you can provide will be appreciated. Op47 (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The "consensus" was all of 4 to 2 which I decline to accept as a "clear consensus." RfC closers do not get a "supervote" in such a case by precedent. The article was not deleted at AfDs in the past where far larger numbers participated, and I regard AfD as being the proper course of action rather than using a 4 to 2 !vote as a means of deletion. Cheers. As for your failure to assume good faith - your accusation that I would edit war on this is absurd and incollegial. Kindly redact that accusation. Where prior AfDs have occurred, it is best to renominate at a new AfD. And I know of no case where the person starting the RfC is considered a proper closer of the RfC which he actually started and using his own "supervote" (I trust no one asserts that 4 to 2 is a "clear consensus to delete an article"). Collect (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand objecting to a closure from a non-administrator. Op47, you realize that ANRFC is an administrator's noticeboard, and Keithbob is not an administrator, so if you were looking for an admin to close it why did you accept Keithbob's closure?

As to whether or not the article must go to AfD... I disagree on that point. The proposal as I understand it isn't to delete the article's content, but to split it up into separate articles and turn the current article into a disambiguation page. I don't see that AfD is required in that case, even if previous AfD discussions resulted in a conclusion to keep the information in one article. I saw, Collect, that you had felt that proper notification wasn't done when the RfC was begun, and so felt that the RfC result was invalid. Would you accept the validity of the RfC if the proper parties (and/or Wikiprojects) were notified and the RfC was extended to give a reasonable time for those people to provide input? That should have at least as much exposure as an AfD. I dislike the idea of moving everything to a new venue when the current location has already had a discussion that can be continued. -- Atama頭 21:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:CLOSE "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. . Furthermore it says RfC's are closed on the basis of "rough consensus". Before closing the RfC I reviewed all of the comments and also read the two prior AfDs from 2012. At the AfD's there was no consensus for deletion. However the clear majority of the participants favored either deletion or merger and only a minority supported keeping the article as is. Same at the RfC. Therefore I assessed that there was a "rough consensus" to merge the contents (not delete them) and to create a disambiguation page in it's place. Closures are subjective and are interpretations by good faith, involved editors. There is a procedure for challenging a close and allowing a participant to revert the close is not one of them. Again I quote WP:CLOSE "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review." However if those who disagree with the consensus close, are permitted to continue shopping for new closers, I'm sure they will eventually find someone who will give them the outcome they desire.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

An article split is not the same as deletion, so I see nop good reason why a debate on a proposed split should have been done via AfD -- indeed I might have speedy-closed such a discussion as an inappropriate nom. While it is usual for AfDs to be closed by admins, particularly AfDs resulting in Delete outcomes, since an admin is needed to perform a deletion anyway, other sorts of RfCs can be closed by experienced editors who are not admins. That said, wider participation might be a good thing, and a neutral announcement to editors who cared enough to comment on the past AfD discussions, or who made significant edits to the article, might be a good idea. Atama's suggestion seems worth considering. I have no opinion on the desirability of the proposed split, but if it is eventaully carried out, i trust the editor who does the split will be careful to use {{copied}} or a similar template to preserve the chain of attributions. DES 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

I don't agree that Collect can unilaterally declare that consensus wasn't reached, and it's definitely not okay to shop for closers until someone closes it the "correct" way. I'm just hoping that a compromise can be found here, I don't see how holding the RfC open for another 7 days will hurt (7 days happens to be the amount of time an AfD would normally take). I've also seen precedence where an editor wants administrator closure of an RfC, which again is why RfCs are listed at AN and ANRFC. -- Atama頭 22:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Atama. I know others may disagree but in my opinion notifying participants from an AfD from two years prior would not be prequisite for an RfC of this kind where the proposal is for a merge not deletion. Also, folks should know that this close was/is listed at ANRFC which is where I found it, as I regularly close RfC's listed there, to assist with the backlog. Collect and I have worked together on a number of occasions at BLPN. They are a sincere and dedicated Wikipedian who is passionate about their work. I'm sure this will get sorted out as things cool down. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atama. The first lines of WP:ANRFC are:"The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages." Therefore I was expecting an uninvolved editor. Keithbob appears to be an uninvolved editor and therefore Keithbob would do. If I am missing something then I am sorry. + ::::I understand, Keithbob, and I don't think that either of you did anything wrong. And Collect is obviously not a neutral observer in this case, and objecting to the closure by reverting was out of process. But at the same time, I think it's reasonable to reach out to more individuals if there are parties who were involved in the most recent AfD who were not informed.

@Collect. The concensus was 5 to 2 (TFD,RJFF,APerson,BlueSalix & N-HH v Robofish & Collect). I did not "vote" and in any case, I weighed the arguments given as is required (because concensus is not a vote) and was persuaded that the article contained several distinct topics. I did not use a "supervote" since that would be contrary to process and was not required in any case. As I have stated above, my ony concern is that somehow we can resolve the split tag and I am sorry that it is proving so contentious. My naturally lazy tendency is to remove the split tag, but I cannot with a clear concience look at either the number of people who have voiced an opinion or the opinions that have been voiced and say that I can see anything other than a concensus to form a disambiguation page. That "Right Wing Socialism" is notable there is no doubt. Judging by the article and the people who have given their opinions, there is no doubt that it is not a single concept. +

@All. I did follow the process given in WP:RFC and I am not sure how this RfC has failed to involve all interested parties. If it will resolve the dispute then I am happy to extend the RfC by another 2 weeks (say) and place a notice along the lines of "You may be interested in this RfC <<link>>" placed on the talk pages of ALL of the participants in the AfDs. Op47 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Op47, what I was referencing in my original comment is the fact that you were reverted by Collect in the original closure when Collect stated "rv non-admin closure", then you went for another closer and got a different non-admin to close it. It just didn't make sense; either you disagree with Collect that it's necessary for an administrator to close it, or you find someone who is an administrator to make the decision. If you just get a second non-admin to close it, of course Collect is going to object again. Look at it this way, if the RFC is open another 7 days and at least the original AfD participants are alerted, that satisfies any objections they have. There really won't be any legitimate reason to object any longer. You may even have more support to split up the article from that attempt. -- Atama頭 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)In case you had not noticed it, that was essentially my position at the start (note that those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this seems pretty clear, IMHO). I would, however, suggest a "clean start" RfC, and hatting the current one lest anyone look at process and not discussion. I still dislike your claim that I was "edit warring" on this, as my past experience has been that back door deletions tend to cause grave problems . Collect (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a back door deletion. There is no request to delete the page. Even if you feel like this is the same as deleting the page, it isn't, no more than moving a page to another name is deleting it, or rewriting an article is a deletion. Let's put it this way, Collect... If someone opened up an AfD and said "I don't really want to delete this article, I want to split it into multiple articles and turn this page into a disambiguation", the AfD would be closed immediately as not being a real AfD. I've seen it happen before, an AfD is intended to nominate articles for deletion, not change, and AfDs which argue for something other than deletion are often closed. Sometimes an AfD results in something other than "keep" or "delete", true, if some kind of compromise is reached in the midst of the discussion. But an AfD is not the correct process to begin this discussion. It's also improper to suggest that we sweep the prior discussion under the rug because nothing was wrong with that discussion even if you came into it late. -- Atama頭 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of every editor who participated in the most recent AfD (April 2012) and has not participated in the RfC:

• Carrite (talk · contribs)
• Monterey Bay (talk · contribs)
• AlexTiefling (talk · contribs)
• Colapeninsula (talk · contribs)
• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs)
• Borock (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• JayJasper (talk · contribs)
• Nug (talk · contribs)
• Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs)
• Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs)
• My very best wishes (talk · contribs)

A neutrally-worded notification sent to each individual should satisfy any concern that not enough of a notification was sent out. And again, if this was an AfD, we'd have 7 days to form consensus, so waiting 7 days after notification would give them the same amount of time to participate that an AfD would. -- Atama頭 23:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I checked, every editor on the list is unblocked (so could participate) and with the exception of Outback the koala and Anarchangel, they're all pretty active (those two editors haven't made an edit since 2013). -- Atama頭 23:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you ping and I sing. This whole topic is inherently tendentious and I don't have much interest in bumping bellies with POV warriors over the future outcome of an article that shouldn't even exist on WP. Quoting myself from the last AfD challenge of this: "Delete - Echoing the complaint I made in the last go-round, there is no such single entity as "right wing socialism." There have been a list of proposed and actual socialist programs through the years characterized by critics as "right wing socialism" — but there is no logical, organic connection between, say, the "right wing socialisms" listed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto and the Bismarckian system in Germany and Bernstein's reformism and the pro-war "Social Patriotism" of the World War I era and the "National Socialism" of Hitler. What we have here is List of things characterized as "Right Wing Socialism" in certain times and places by their critics. Which is not an encyclopedic topic. Each and every sub-topic here is the subject of its own article, so far as I am aware — this is a pure fork. Don't let the wall of footnotes distract you, keep your eye on the ball. Carrite (talk)." That was ignored, pity. Have fun. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently when I added that list above, it pinged a number of people, and aside from Carrite coming here to comment here, AlexTiefling, Darkness Shines and Nug have all commented at the discussion page. So in a sense, notification has been sent. I'm going to take the initiative and notify the others who have not yet participated. It's possible that the other editors may have turned off the automatic notifications that occur when your name is mentioned, or missed such notifications. The fact that some of these editors are choosing to participate seems to justify Collect's suggestion that they should have been notified initially. -- Atama頭 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've notified every editor on the list above who has not yet commented, with the exception of My very best wishes who has a template indicating that they have retired from Misplaced Pages, and who has left a message requesting that no more messages be posted on their talk page. My suggestion is to allow the RfC to run for at least an additional 7 days (until 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)) to have the proper 7 day wait that an AfD would have allowed. After that time, an administrator can decide consensus, or if it looks like a compromise is in the works that would satisfy most parties then the discussion should be allowed to conclude naturally. -- Atama頭 18:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is sufficient. If this were an AfD it would have been listed via WP:DELSORT to gain the widest community input. --Nug (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was listed via RfC for more than a month for wide community input. -- Atama頭 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

92.163.53.142

Special:Contributions/92.163.53.142 - serial citation spammer - rollback? 113.210.142.105 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the cites. They appear to be on-topic.--Auric talk 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Proxying for banned editor

This IP is openly making edits to Misplaced Pages on behalf of a banned editor. The IP even links to the off-site post by the banned editor in the edit summaries. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Per Misplaced Pages:BAN#Proxying it's perfectly appropriate to make edits suggested by a banned user if they are independently verifiable and a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I haven't examined these edits in detail, but having read the original blog post, it pointed out a number of independently verifiable things that could be changed to present a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's okay if the edits are vouched for by someone independent. If the IP is doing everything only at the direction of the banned individual (as a meatpuppet) that's not allowed, nor would it be allowed if the IP is actually the banned editor doing the edits themselves anonymously. Since we operate by assuming good faith, you'd need evidence pointing to either misbehavior for us to disallow these edits. I'll say that I've done similar actions myself, though not for a banned editor. I've worked with an editor who had a clear COI and made edits on their behalf, but I most definitely did so not by proxy. Many of the edits they suggested that I do, I didn't do because I disagreed with them, and others that I did were applied only after a significant discussion and compromise was reached. So I can sympathize with the IP's position if these edits are being done legitimately. -- Atama頭 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, meatpuppetry isn't allowed. But IP's are perfectly valid editors, so unless someone can show evidence that either (a) the edits are not verifiable, (b) the edits are being made directly by Damien, or (c) the edits violate some other policy, then the edits are perfectly fine. Given that Cla68 is a moderator of the site that posted the blog in question, I suspect the reason he posted this thread has little to do with genuine concern over the edits the IP made. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems reasonable. P.S. I wouldn't know Peter Damien, whoever that is, if he tripped me. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• See banned users. The issue of proxying for banned users is one of the most disruptive that can arise at Misplaced Pages because the Pollyanna approach of evaluating each edit for its merits flies in the face of WP:Banned means banned. Supporting such edits is a win for liberty, but a large incentive for trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, this is not a situation of block evasion, as far as I can see. The last version of Peter's userpage as he edited it suggests a UK connexion (he says he went to a UK university), and all the IPs in Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Peter Damian are English: one in Yorkshire, and the rest in London or elsewhere in the south. Conversely, IP address 41.130.42.159 is located in Egypt — unless Peter's made a big move, it's someone else. No comment on anything else being discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• If good information comes as a result of a banned editor making a suggestion on an external site, then the project has been improved. Other than spite, there, is no real reason to reject such an edit out of hand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• John, if you disagree with a fairly long standing portion of our banning policy, I'd suggest you suggest a change in appropriate forum. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Petition

I see myself in an awkward situation by user Lecen.

The article Peter III of Aragon had during two years (since 2011) the image Pedro II de Aragón.jpg on the infobox.

In October 2013, user Srnec changed the image without consensus. We had an edition war, but we began to speak. In this moment, user Lecen (who had had a conflict with me in Pedro II of Brazil) intervened in the article by first time. He accused me of being the cause of the conflict and removed my editions. I said him that was the Srnec's change the cause and that the previous version must be live until the consensus. He didn't hear and presented a complaint against me. And I was punished. Now, he haunts me. I have filed a complaint against another user and he has come to discredit me by my background. And he has returned to delete the previous image, the image of before the discussion, without reasons and also threatens to report me if I restart.--EeuHP (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, aren't you just a fountain of edit-warring? We don't deal with content disputes here, but you do have a significant history of violating the rules. Have you tried following WP:DR properly, or are you simply going to rely on reversion again and again across multiple articles. Just because it's been a month since your last edit war on that article, does not mean it's not blockable DP 00:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Update: the OP has now filed multiple AN3 reports for month-old issues (all closed as stale), and is now complaining around the 'pedia that we're refusing to punish the other party. EeuHP has been advised multiple times that blocks are preventative, not punishment, but they're off in their own world. This WP:BATTLE behaviour is growing tiring ES&L 12:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you dismiss this out of hand, have you looked at User:Lecen's intervention?

Edit summary Do it again, please

Edit summary You are edit warring. This might lead to sanctions against you. Please, stop.

Edit summary Don't do that or else I'll have to report you

The OP was edit warring but there seems to be a spot of WP:TAG going on, not to mention a little baiting to breach 3RR. Having had dealings with Lecen before, I have seen him edit warring, baiting and generally abusing other editors but it is rarely commented on because of his GA and FA history. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Look further back ... this is long-term edit-warring over months, and they've done the same thing over a number of articles ES&L 12:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did, eg its been an issue with both. But for this particular example, Lecen is removing a featured picture to impose his preference. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other IMHO. And I'm not surprised to see Asyntax involved who I expect to pop up and defend his friend shortly. WP:Brazil works as a definite clique. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of baiting, unless you are referring to the edit summary "Do it again, please", which could easily be an accidental contraction of "don't do it again please". Also, the "featured picture" is the one on Pedro II of Brazil not Peter III of Aragon. EeuHP's preferred image, File:Pedro III de Aragón.jpg, is not featured. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A good evidence of baiting is that Lecen never worked in articles of the Crown of Aragon and he decided edit in the article of Peter III, where his old opponent had a discussion with Srnec (who made a controversial change). He ignore that the previous edition was Pedro III de Aragón.jpg and he gave the reason to Srnec and his recent change. After he denounced me and I was blocked (and I couldn't present a complaint against Srnec by violation of the rule of three reversals). And now, I returned and I find him in all the places. He return at the article of Peter III for remove my edition and he threatens me to get another complaint if I don't do what he wants and when I finally present the complaint about Srnec, he is the second who appears to discredit me.--EeuHP (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it would appear that the person bringing the complaint here is unquestionably in the right unless the pictures are mislabeled. The basic requirement for a picture in an infobox is that it show the correct subject. I would never blame an inexperienced editor for not following the rules or for pressing too hard when he's in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. DangerousPanda, EatsShootsAndLeaves, would you care to comment on whether what he wants to do is right or wrong? DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bemused by your comment. What is he "in the right" about? There are disputes about whether one image or another should be preferred on some articles (notably the articles on Pedro II of Brazil and Peter III of Aragon). I don't think there is any suggestion that images of someone else have been used. The dispute concerns accusations of edit warring on one side and of stalking on the other. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedro III de Aragón.jpg was put by one user in 2011. Srnec change the portrait and put the coin and I oppose. Who cause the edition war? Srnec, because he made a change that was no accepted. We violated the 3RR and finally we talk. While we talk, the previous version prevailed. Srnec himself support the situation during a few time. But then Lecen appears and said "EeuHP, you are the cause of the war and you must stop". I explain the situation, but he don't heard me. He remove the image two times and he denounced me and I was blocked. And when I was blocked, Srnec no needed search consensus. Now, official version say that I was the autor of a controversial change in Peter III of Aragón y you and the other fight for the coin, when until the consensus arrive the image that should prevail is Pedro III de Aragón.jpg.--EeuHP (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked EeuHP for three months for violating WP:3RR at Peter III of Aragon and filing bogus reports at WP:AN3, not to mention taking the same complaints to my talk page and to EdJohnston's talk page (Ed was the last admin to block the user - one month). EeuHP just came off a one-month edit-warring block. They were unblocked early based on this request: "Having most of the i sentence passed, I request the unblocking. If someone is concerned about the possibility of more edit wars, I say that I will stick to the rules scrupulously, with caution and paying attention to detail for not ignore any aspect." I don't know how anyone can justify the user's subsequent behavior. However, if there is a consensus to unblock them or shorten the duration, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The picture EeuHP reverted to has been in the article for years. Srnec changed it back in Jan and was challenged, but instead of taking it to talk, the two edit-warred over it till EeuHP was finally blocked. EeuHP is right in reinstating the older picture in the absence of consensus. Regardless, he's stopped edit warring and 'filing bogus reports' and came here, so this block's rather punitive, on the face of it. However, this user's now well on their way to becoming a persona non grata, so I suggest the 3-month block is upheld in hope that they'll fill the time they used to spend on Misplaced Pages warring over pictures of dictators with something a little more productive. — Lfdder (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not strictly accurate - they didn't stop edit warring after they opened this ANI, or after I attempted to discuss the issue with them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Lfdder's account is not accurate at all. Srnec replaced the image with an edit summary explaining, quite logically, the reasons. EeuHP tried to edit war. His edit summaries indicate total ignorance of the historical issues with the image, so Srnec's reaction is understandable. However Srnrc initiated discussion by self-reverting , indicating a willingness to discuss not displayed by EeuHP. EeuHP continued to revert war with all other editors. There are many images in articles that have been there for years, but which are totally inappropriate. Articles on medieval history can remain untouched for a long time with erroneous content or the wrong image. Even articles on later, better documented periods, can have this problem. The article on Geertje Dircx had a reproduction of Rembrandt's Danae with a totally absurd caption that she had the face of Geertje. It was there for years. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of my account is inaccurate? I don't think you understand how consensus building works. Also, it takes two to edit war. — Lfdder (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I wrote. I already answered the question you asked. The "point" you make in the last sentence has already been addressed in my first reply. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I do. Put simply, once reverted, you don't revert again. Srnec initiated discussion after what -- about 10 back-and-forths? The user's ignorance isn't exactly relevant to the edit war. — Lfdder (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There were nowhere near ten. Such silly hyperbole does not help discussion. There were three before the self-revert, and they were based on the legitimate fact that EeuHP's edit summaries were wrong, which fact was pointed out in the revert. Ignorance of the facts is a good reason to revert an edit. If the editor is simply wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, it is understandable that the editor who knows the facts will want to remove the inaccuracies. You can't just trot out "it takes two to edit war" as if that means both participants are somehow automatically equally guilty all the time. That's far too glib. We have to take circumstances into account, as there is always a grey area from wanton vandalism, through abject ignorance to legitimate disagreement. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, and then they continued warring. Choosing a picture is obviously to a very large degree subjective. At first, EuuHP didn't seem to understand 'contemporary', but then they simply disagreed about which one's better to have. — Lfdder (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Regardless, he's stopped edit warring and 'filing bogus reports' and came here" - he continued to edit war after he came here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that wasn't Paul's complaint. — Lfdder (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed, but unsurprised. I attempted to mediate, but the language barrier is a problem, and I think some of the issue is EeuHP's weak grasp of English. EeuHP's initial reversion may have been right, but the latest set of edit warring cannot be defended - as Bbb23 rightly stated, they were unblocked after specifically stating that they would not edit-war. Particularly as Srnec was not the only user to revert them either time around. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well he may have been rude but he was also correct; using a picture of a coin when we have a nice portrait is just plain silly. Why do established users get to skate time after time for rudeness yet the newbies get marched to the gulag on offense #1 ? Tarc (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For me, this is about conduct, not content, but, regardless, this is hardly "offense #1" for this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No Tarc he wasn't. The portrait, as is explained in the discussion, is just a generic king-picture created hundreds of years later. The point was made in the original edit summary. There are lots of these from the 16th century when imaginary galleries of kings were created. When we have nothing contemporary we have to make do with such images, as in Macbeth. But we shouldn't use them because they just "look nicer". Paul B (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it a bit hard to believe that a half-dozen other wikis are using the image if it is incorrect, but if so, then images such as File:Rey_Pedro_III_Aragón.jpg would still be far preferable. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to believe, for the reasons I've given in detail, and Srnc himself gave in detail. It's not "incorrect"., though the costume is certainly incorrect for the period. It's just a non-contemporary king-gallery portrait. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Creations

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

OMICS Creations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some group editors doing syndicate editing ande redirecting films and movies page OMICS Creations to Scientific Publishing OMICS Publishing Group. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet investigation and full protection for this article.Movieking007 (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• What's needed here is a CU to deal with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Now at AN3 as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 can be closed - wasn't even filed correctly. And the OP can be warned for forum-shopping. ES&L 12:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of the AN3 report that I filed re Movieking007, who has bright-line violated 3RR. That one was filed properly and should result in a block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Movieking007 blocked for 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC).

Mt. Gox -- current event

This is just a heads-up; nobody is doing anything bad, but some people are getting carried away.

Mt. Gox, the troubled Bitcoin exchange, shut down today, with no warning and no details. NYT: "Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World". Forbes: "Bitcoin's Price Plummets As Mt. Gox Goes Dark, With Massive Hack". Bloomberg: "Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange Goes Offline as Peers Lash Out at Firm". WSJ: "Mt. Gox Website Unavailable; Home Page Appears to Have Been Deleted". All sorts of wild rumors are going around, being echoed through the press, and some are being put into Misplaced Pages. There's heavy press coverage, but nobody really has solid info, except that their web site and Twitter feed have been blanked and the phones don't answer. There's a "leaked reorganization plan" floating around, which may be fake, but some news outlets believe it. A few more eyes on the article would be appropriate for the next 24 to 48 hours to keep the rumor level under control. --John Nagle (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for a day or two of semi-protection on Mt. Gox. Junk edits from anons, an SPA with an obvious name, etc.. Nothing really bad, just too much noise. (Press coverage is very heavy - over 800 articles in Google News just for today. Unfortunately, it's mostly the same sparse info being echoed through blogs, op-eds, and secondary sources.) --John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a few days. I looked at the page history and there are many reverts in a short period, enough to justify semi-protection in my opinion. -- Atama頭 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That should do it for now. John Nagle (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Assistance needed: Liliane Bettencourt

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

Liliane Bettencourt has been revised by multiple authors to include information about ongoing scams linking directly to the Misplaced Pages article. This has been occurring since at least February 7 .

A discussion has been started, and the justification for inclusion of the scam email information is WP:IAR. Full details and justification for using WP:IAR are on the talk page. As of this time, no solid argument has been presented to refute WP:IAR.

Regardless of this, editors continue to remove the information from the page without discussion on refuting the applicability of WP:IAR.

173.59.201.71 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Talk page is clear enough on this. You just wont hear it. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Full text of conversation, copied from the Talk page:

In light of repeated removals of warnings regarding this Misplaced Pages page being used for scam emails, I have invoked WP:Ignore All Rules, since there really is no clear rule on what to do when Misplaced Pages is being directly used to scam people. In this case, scammers are linking DIRECTLY to the Misplaced Pages page.

Misplaced Pages is about making a positive impact on people's lives, and providing them accurate information. In this case, a factual Misplaced Pages page is being used by scammers for non-factual purposes, in order to take advantage of others through Advance Fee Fraud scams.

The decision to invoke WP:IAR was not taken lightly, and in this case I feel is very appropriate.

Editors keep removing the warnings, but only with the justification that it's "not encyclopedic". I think Misplaced Pages has evolved beyond just being an encyclopedia, since it is used and updated real time.

I also challenge any editor who wants to remove the warning - which does more harm or more good?

The warning is only one line in italics at the beginning of the article, and does not impact the content of the article, or affect its' NPOV. Very little harm is done by having the warning present, while at the same time the good it can do is tremendous - it could prevent many people from falling for these scams.

On the flipside, should the warning be removed, people may believe the emails are genuine, since they refer to a trusted source (Misplaced Pages).

173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite multiple attempts at communicating with other editors, this keeps getting removed without discussion. Please discuss it here. I have moved the information to its own section on the page, citing sources. I'm very disappointed by Misplaced Pages editors removing this content without discussion. I have invoked WP:IAR to improve Misplaced Pages and the knowledge of would-be victims. Of course apparently because I'm just an IP address and not a registered account, I am immediately seen as a newbie and my views disregarded. I don't have any barnstars, or thousands of contributions on Misplaced Pages, so I have very little weight here it seems. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're certainly correct that after multiple back-and-forth reverts this should be discussed here. However, your addition to the article doesn't belong there. There is an inconceivable amount of spam of that kind. If we had to make a mention on every article of someone who's been the butt of such a spam email, we'd have a lot of work. Long story short, this occurrence fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 13:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is a unique case, in that Misplaced Pages is being used directly. If scammers learn they can't send people to Misplaced Pages to "verify" their emails, they'll turn elsewhere, and this becomes a self resolving problem. Misplaced Pages community does care about their site being used to scam people, right? 173.59.201.71 (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't, in any way, verify the credibility of that spam email. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 13:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

To the average non-technical user, it does. Someone sees a link to a trusted website, and they automatically assume the email is genuine. It's called social engineering. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to it this isn't "Misplaced Pages - World police". Caveat lector applies both with Misplaced Pages and spam emails. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's very arguable. By your logic, IMDb would need anti-piracy notices on all its pages because torrent sites tend to link to IMDb on pages where you can illegally download a movie. Hospitals would need to constantly hand out flyers because Viagra-spam says "proven by doctors". You see where I'm going. All that withstanding though, mentioned policies apply. I'll stay out of it (action wise) for now, though. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When people are at a piracy website, they know they're getting pirated films. Viagra spammers don't send people to a hospital to get Viagra. The best precedent I can actually think of would be Western Union. Because Wester Union at grocery stores, etc. is being used "directly" by scammers (in that they send their victims there), Western Union now has flyers/pamphlets at the Western Union counter discussing the different scams which actively take place and leverage Western Union. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Following the IAR flowchart... Does it break the rules? Yes -> Does it break the rules because the rules are wrong? No -> Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia? Yes -> Ignore the Rules. The true contention here then is, "Are you sure this change is a good change by common sense and it improves the encyclopedia?" If Misplaced Pages is being used directly by scammers, then it only makes common sense to subvert their efforts and act accordingly. Does it improve the encyclopedia? Yes, in that it provides information which is critically needed by someone who will be visiting the page as a direct result of a scammer sending them an email, as well as raise awareness for others. Hence, my justification for WP:IAR 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also important to note, I am not the only person who has attempted to add information warning of the scam emails. 173.59.201.71 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

173.59.201.71 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I just said, the Talk page is clear enough. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what more I can add to this. I don't feel this is the sort of thing IAR was meant to cover. Also references given to support the statements in the article are from forums/blog posts which aren't suitable anyway. Fraggle81 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with DESiegel. There is no conceivable reason to keep this factoid in. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:84.127.80.114 and Debian edit war

I have been recently blocked for 48 hours. I insist that I was not the one edit warring. I even reduced the amount of my changes to a minimum. I got a WP:AN3 warning to not be disruptive in the article. I only reverted the disputed changes that used non neutral language. I was not disruptive. I was blocked because I made a change to the article.

My unblock request is not answered. I see that administrators are busy but I cannot work without an answer. I am worried this will be an excuse to block me for a longer period of time if I try to make any changes to the article. My ability to bold edit and revert is virtually blocked. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not blocked - if you were, you could not have edited here DP 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you been edit-warring at Debian? Yes. Has Mthinkcpp been edit-warring? Yes, but to a much lesser degree. You were more insistent with your reverts, having reverted twice in the same day, while the reverts that Mthinkcpp had made were spaced days apart. Neither one of you violated the three revert rule (reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) but Bbb23 made the decision to block you as being the more aggressive editor in this case. I'm not sure I would have made that decision, but I don't think it was the "wrong" decision either; I can see the logic behind it.

In either case, you can and should be blocked again if you insist on reinserting the information that was disputed through reverts and is being discussed on the article's talk page. The proper way to resolve this is to convince other editors that you are correct. If you can't do that, and can't achieve consensus, it can't be added. If you can't understand that, or refuse to accept it, and continue on this path you'll be blocked again. Just continue the discussion at the article talk page, and resolve it there. Also, look at our page on dispute resolution for advice about how to best deal with an issue where you are unable to come to an agreement with another editor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am not technically blocked. But I "should" be blocked again if I repeat my actions. Therefore another bold edit or revert will mean a new block. I do discuss. I did discuss then. Reverters do not. Atama says that content without consensus cannot be added. I reverted that content without consensus and I got blocked. If what I did is considered edit warring, why cannot these changes be made to WP:WAR?

Will my next bold edit/revert to the article mean a new block? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. The reason why such blocks are made are to force people to handle these disputes as they're supposed to be done; through the article talk page. For reference, read bold-revert-discuss, which is the usual course of events. (Someone makes a bold edit, another person reverts it, and they settle it by discussion; you're at the discussion stage now.) -- Atama頭 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Vnisanian2001

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Warned for years and blocked twice in August 2013 for disruptive editing. Continued warnings since most-recent block have not eliminated behavior.

Most-recent edit to Bad (Michael Jackson song) includes revision that does not match information tagged with referenced material in prior revision, corroborating pattern of behavior in disruptive editing. Although reference linked in article shows 1987, unsigned message from the user left on my talk page as well as the article talk page shows user still does not understand WP:V despite warnings as far back as 2011. Additionally, the song in the topic of the article was not even recorded until 1987 and was released later that year in September, details that call into question the user's WP:COMPETENCE as the user is suggesting the music video was filmed during 1986, prior to actual recording of the song.

Multiple other talk messages not adhering to WP:~ are further examples of user not meeting WP:COMPETENCE.

AldezD (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute at V. S. Naipaul

There is an ongoing dispute over editorial control and overall direction at V. S. Naipaul. The primary issue is one of apparent WP:Own behavior on the part of User:Fowler&fowler. Fowler&fowler has been actively editing the page since September 2013, and the page has been tagged as under construction for over a month. While he has certainly added a lot of referenced content to the article, in the course of his edits, Fowler&fowler has removed nearly all content, including references, added by other editors.dif This removal includes the removal of all criticism of Naipaul. Fowler&fowler has been dismissive of concerns raised on the talk page (dif1dif2), and he has recently insisted that he have sole editing control of the page for a month.dif, and that discussion and debate be put off until he is finished.dif.

While Fowler&fowler has preemptively declared this a 'frivolous, indeed tendentious and disruptive, conflict resolution'dif, from my perspective, the development of the V. S. Naipaul article is being stunted by Fowler&fowler's actively discouraging other editors. I understand that placing an article under construction gives an editor some leway to make major changes, but in this instance, I believe Fowler&fowler has overstepped the purview of construction.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply: Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Misplaced Pages. On 13 September 2014, just before I began to expand it, with a view to ultimately making it a Featured Article, it had two sections and 1,000 words. The first section had gossip as is painfully obvious here and the second section, if you scroll down further, was nothing but a copy and paste from nobelprize.org, with one or two token sentences of criticism. I made a post on the talk page and proceeded to expand the article, explaining in my edit summary that I was removing some material temporarily, but that all that was relevant would be replaced in the expanded article including distilled paraphrases of the copy-and-paste quotes. In mid-October I had a family emergency—two members of my family, in quick succession, came down with serious long-term illnesses, one terminal. By early November it became obvious to me that it was becoming difficult to both attend to Misplaced Pages and the Real Life stresses caused by the illnesses, not to mention my other real life commmittments. I made put a Wikibreak message on my user page and my talk page. At that point the article had reached this state (there was an underconstruction tag in place, and it had been expanded to almost 2,000 words of plain text). In mid-December, I extended the Wikibreak message until mid-February. On 20 February 2014, just as I was preparing to return, an editor, user:Chisme, who had not made a single edit to the Naipaul page reverted all my edits and restored the poorly written version of 13 September 2013. Soon user:Dialectric, who himself had not made any edits to the Naipaul page in four years (and three trivial edits before), joined user:Chisme. For the rest of the story, you can read the sections:

• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Back_now
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Cooling_it and
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#A_frivolous.2C_tendentious.2C_and_now_disruptive_interruption

I frankly don't know what to say. As my user page, user:Fowler&fowler shows, I have been developing content for a long time, including FA India, the oldest country FA on Misplaced Pages, where I have made over 1,000 edits, and collaborated with dozens, if not hundreds, of people (my 2,845 edits on Talk:India are a testament to that! :) ). No one has ever made these allegations before, certainly not dragged me to ANI. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Misplaced Pages." That is a POV matter of opinion. The people who made the 1500+ edits to V.S. Naipaul between its inception in 2001 and 14 September 2013 when Fowler erased the work of all editors before him would disagree. Fowler keeps claiming that my objections to his re-write have no merit because I didn't edit the article before him -- that is clear evidence of a Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles violation. I have never seen an editor try to reserve an article for more than a week, much less several months. He is abusing the Major Restructuring tag. And I have never seen editor so vehemently object to any change whatsoever because he believes an article belongs to him. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:DRN be a better place to put this? Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, but the WP:Own issue I pointed out seems to me to be preventing a resolution of content issues on the article talk page, so from my perspective the issue is more one of conduct than content, and my understanding of WP:DRN is that it is for disputes where content is the sole/primary issue. Dialectric (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the current route the article is taking. If Dialectric or any other editor wants to add something more to it, they may suggest it on the talk page to avoid edit conflicts. Misplaced Pages has no deadlines and even better option would be if they actually turn to the article a bit later on and then probably they might not even need to make any suggestions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Who adds those galleries of images? I saw such galleries were added into Subhas Chandra Bose article too. Tito☸Dutta 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

F&f adds them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think all of those should be removed. What do you think? Tito☸Dutta 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Its different. I kinda like it. But i guess sometimes it might not look good. For example, with my screen size 4 images (as in VSN) fit very well in a single horz line. But 2 images (as in SCB) create a lot of empty space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(To TitoDutta: It might be better to carry on this discussion on the Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose page.) I have followed the advice I was given during the FAC review of my FA Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#Subahdars_of_Sira.2C_1689.E2.80.931760 (see maps there). I have been away, so I hadn't noticed earlier that someone added half a dozen outsized images of the memorial in Manipur to the Bose page. I have now removed all except one, which I have moved to the "Death" section. The rest of the Bose article has mostly 4 images in each gallery, except two sections. I was trying to get some more images for those sections when I had to go away. I am back now. If I don't find more images, I'll change them to the regular WP format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PS (To TitoDutta) All galleries in Bose now in 4 picture format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• But why do we need such distracting galleries? 5 galleries in an article, adding nothing and changing the look of the entire article. I'll ask Sitush Ji, whom I trust very much. Then if needed I'll open a discussion thread at SCB talk. --Tito☸Dutta 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with an editor

I asked a question regarding the Olympics articles here: ] and I'm having a problem with one of your editors. How do I deal with this, since I'd appreciate a straight answer to the question rather than the sophomoric responses that I've been receiving (in other words, this guy's being a dick. Thanks. 24.212.139.102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, while not exactly a personal attack I do discourage you from linking meta:Don't be a dick in reference to someone, it's only likely to inflame the situation. In any case, my advice is to speak with the WikiProject Olympics people. They help make decisions about Olympics-related article, including what we use as naming conventions (they have a Manual of Style though I couldn't see anything there to address your specific questions). They could better answer your questions and hopefully you'll receive a more helpful response there. -- Atama頭 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice on talking to the Olympics project folks which I'll do when I get a chance, but I'd still like this guy dealt with (I realize that it's probably not serious enough for you to officially sanction him, but perhaps a stern talking-to? If you check his talk page, it's not the first time that he's come into conflict with other editors. And on the topic of talk page, I find the banner at the top of his to be offensive, and probably not the best way to project the image of a kinder, gentler wikipedia). It's people like him that discourage people like me from becoming regular editors, and from what I understand there have been concerns about declining numbers of wikipedia editors, so it seems to be that it's incumbent for admins such as yourself to take a more proactive approach when dealing with disruptive elements like him. Thanks for the reply. 24.212.139.102 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. Lugnuts has come into conflict into the past because of their communication style. It can and should be improved, though enforcing conduct on a person is difficult. I could drop a suggestion on Lugnuts's user talk page, but I doubt it will be received with anything short of dismissal, judging by their history. While rude, the editor's responses to you didn't measure up to a personal attack either, so there's not much that can be done at the moment. The banner at the top of Lugnuts's user page could be offensive to some people, but Misplaced Pages is not censored, the banner isn't directed at a particular person or group of people, and if you click the link at the top of the banner I think that the banner is a quote from a comedy series, not an actual message to anyone.

You're going to run into rude people on Misplaced Pages, just as in real life, I do all the time too (in both places) and sometimes you have to work with them. I do encourage you to create an account despite that, as it will help make the site more accessible to you and it will improve the way that others react to you if you have a verifiable edit history (I wish people treated IP editors better but there will always be a bias). I think from your conduct here and the good questions you raise at the article talk page that you have a lot to offer the project. -- Atama頭 21:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the user above that the treatment you got from User:Lugnuts is rude, inappropriate, and sadly not the first time that editor has tasted the newbies. That said, it's at the lower end of the spectrum and any form of sanction we could impose probably won't stick. If it's any consolation, looking at the discussion, it reflects a lot more positively on you than it does on them. Lankiveil 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

user:Zmaher

Zmaher (talk · contribs)

I don't know what to make of Zmaher. While I can only assume they want to help, a lot of their edits leave a lot to be desired. They do not communicate whatsoever (see talk page: a long list of messages and warnings without any reply) and they do as they see fit. I reported them earlier at AIV too, which did lead to a personal message. That was mostly about adding copyrighted material, but even now Zmaher doesn't follow suit. Adding a lot of trivial information on concert tours for instance: here, here and here. He was also issued some warnings on not playing the genre warrior. I don't want to see Zmaher go, their edits on Russa-United States relations for instance are often constructive (albeit, they do lack a source). But with their no-regards-for-others attitude, these edits aren't helping at all. --Soetermans. T / C 20:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- having reviewed a lot of their edits, there appears to be an issue with competence. They were given a final warning by PhilKnight in October 2013 for disruptive editing (including copy vio), they never use edit summaries despite some large changes to articles that all end up reverted, and refuse to engage with other editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• They wouldn't be the first one to find discussion problematic. Why some feel that way I cannot guess. Soetermans, you don't want to see them go, but what do you want? PhilKnight warned that they might be blocked if they're edit warring again, and a kind of edit warring is going on in Wherever We May Roam Tour and Nowhere Else to Roam. On the whole, their behavior seems on the low end of the disruption scale, though I have yet to see a net positive. Perhaps Phil can comment and tell us if this (mild) edit warring half a year after his last warning is reason enough for a block. Don't get me wrong, there may well be other reasons for a block (the trivia, etc.). Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say a block might be in order. Two weeks or something, I don't know. Just so that they finally get the message. By their contributions, we can assume they must've spotted a new message pop-up that mentioned this here discussion. Instead, Zmaher edited the Russia-United States relations article again, which has already been undone. --Soetermans. T / C 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

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

Reports of multiple vandalism and edit wars on talk page. Consider revocation of edit rights and blocking of this user. User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bides time (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reports by editors who haven't read WP:NOTVAND or WP:3RRNO. Some background to this dispute: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shannon Bohle and . --NeilN 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note that false accusations of vandalism as you made here are possible grounds for sanction to yourself. Be very careful not to accuse another editor's edits as "vandalism" unless you are 100% sure that they are only acting to damage Misplaced Pages. In this case, TheRedPenOfDoom was making changes to the page in an effort to maintain our biographies of living persons policy, which requires that we be particularly careful to ensure that all information on such biographies is properly sourced. There is no policy against editing an article during a deletion discussion, in fact it is quite common and is often done to demonstrate why an article should be kept (by expanding the article and adding sources to establish notability. -- Atama頭 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a totally uncalled for action. TheRedPenOfDoom has acted 100% within logical procedures. The article in question was an is seriously flawed, even if the subject might be notable (which I clearly do not think it is, I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, something I have only done a very few times). Actually, I also have to say I am beginning to suspect that Bides time may have a conflict of interest in editing this article. I might be seeing an issue that is not there, but at least one other person has at least wondered if their might be a conflict of interest involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per John Pack Lambert and Atama above. TRPOD has done nothing improper in any of the linked articles as far as I can see. WP:BOOMARANG time, anyone? DES 00:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Krutoi dezigner was repeatedly blocked for edit warring and personal attacks and when unblocked returns and continues where he left off

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

User:Krutoi dezigner, A.K.A. User:G_PViB, A.K.A. User:Tempac3, A.K.A various IPs, has been repeatedly blocked for "abuse of editing privileges", "disruptive editing", "edit warring", "personal attacks or harassment", and "personal attack". Said editor was blocked for 24 hours on, 1 January 2014...and blocked again for one week on, 2 January 2014...and blocked for one month on, 10 January 2014...and blocked again for one month for , 25 January 2014. This time with talk page access revoked. This information can be verified on said user's Block Log, contributions and Talk Page (assuming he has not deleted the later).

He has returned and immediately resumed his edit warring and continues personal attacks. ie "Deleted edits added by a special boy..." This is nothing more than a reference to his past personal attacks. Such as referring to other editors as " mentally unfit to edit Misplaced Pages in a fair and balanced way. I remind you that even admins were banned from Misplaced Pages for mental episodes", " psychotic and a borderline autistic.", "psychotic imbecile (who lives with his mommy, I bet)", etc. Clearly, User:Krutoi dezigner believes that anyone who disagrees with him has mental health issues.--RAF910 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard...User:Krutoi dezigner has been blocked indefinitely by User:Georgewilliamherbert for "Personal attacks or harassment: Immediate return to personal attacks after month long block expired".--RAF910 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious IDHT even after mediation

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

The India Against Corruption article has been subject to a lot of controversy due to the name been used to refer to a highly notable popular movement of 2011-2013 and also, on and off, by a non-notable underground arm of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army. Various contributors claiming to represent the HSRA IAC have attempted to have the article look something like this, notably AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk · contribs) and the now-blocked open proxy 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk · contribs).

They've made their attempts on the article itself and, more recently, via the Help Desk, WMF & OTRS, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/India_Against_Corruption (closing statement) etc. They've also tried routes such as RfC and WP:3O on the article talk page.

Now, they're back are HRA1924 (talk · contribs) (which should be blocked as representing an organisation) and there seems to be no end to their WP:TE, WP:IDHT, inability to understand how Misplaced Pages works, and continued use of chilling legal terminology such as "slander", "defame" etc (see, for example, their latest posts at Tiptoety's talk page linked above).

Do they have any other recourse? Have we reached the point where we should block on sight for a combination of NLT, meatpuppetry/socking, incompetence, not editing as an individual etc? - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Sitush has filed this ANI in violation of the notice at the top of this that this page is not to be used for "privacy related issues or potential libel/defamation matters"

• Our "Escalation of OTRS" is based on the suggestion from Phillipe Beadette of WMF after the mediation was closed .
• Our use of the "role account" "HRA1924" is strictly limited to availing grievance redressal processes Misplaced Pages offers. We are not editing articles or article talk pages. We are forced to adopt this route as the email/OTRS systems at Misplaced Pages has clearly told us on 19.Dec.2013 and 4.Jan.2014 that there is no "Central Authority" for redacting article content and WP:DR.
• IAC is forced to adopt such a route because Indian citizens who access Misplaced Pages through the .IN domain "wikipedia.in" (or otherwise) are being deprived of their legal rights to the centralised "Grievance Officer" they are entitled to by India's laws - this is a statement of fact and not a legal threat. Other US based Internet content providers have such a centralised system in place, and IAC uses it regularly to delete libelous content, and we confirm that the centralised "Grievance Officer" system works and works very well too.
• The main dispute in the article is whether "Anna Hazare" equates with "India Against Corruption". Sitush refused to discuss our sources, or the challenge we posed to the sources he used for his baseless claim. IAC regularly objects to news reports which equate Anna Hazare/Team Anna to IAC. For example today this was corrected by the reputed news organisation to this . And the change was carried out within 8 minutes of our email complaint (the emails of which are retained by us).
• IAC does not intend to interact with the Misplaced Pages community on this issue after the mediation was closed, we are following the processes the WMF indicates to us to get the defamatory text which was inserted solely by User:Sitush about us deleted or corrected. From now on we shall only interact with persons competent to assess our grievance and take suitable action.
• We are also advised, although we can't locate the WP policy just now, that if a party who has agreed to mediation drops out to avoid justifying/discussing his edits which are at issue - it is a behavioral issue for which that editor can be banned. We say that User:Sitush is such an editor who deserves to be banned.
• Sitush has been unable to show any other person who claims to be India Against Corruption. In fact Sitush has consistently said that our legal rights to the name / trademark "India Against Corruption" are not relevant to the content of the article.
• Sitush wrongly says that we are from HRSA - we are not. HRA and HRSA are 2 different animals (the Misplaced Pages article for this is incorrect).
• Sitush wrongly projects that we are an "underground" operation. We have denied it - and he could not prove it.
• Nobody has edited this article while claiming to be from HRA-IAC. Please show us such a diff. In fact we had specified at the start of our intervention that we have a conflict of interest which precludes us from editing this article.
• We have openly declared on the User Page that this role account is for a specific purpose. If Misplaced Pages has a problem with it, let the WMF provide us an alternative - such as a centralised Grievance Officer.
• Finally, we have not made legal threats. Our usage of terms like "defamation" and "slander" is to provide the policy basis for the BLP violations on this article. Sitush was unable to counter the sources /citations we provided wherein the defamed BLP subjects have publicly denied the libels they are RSS / communal persons. HRA1924 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. As someone who has crossed paths with this before, I would like to say a few words in reply.

• They advised you contacted an OTRS admin only to complain about any OTRS volenteers; They have no other powers
• Per WP:ROLE, role accounts are not allowed
• Misplaced Pages is based in the USA, therefore has to follow US laws, not Indian ones
• True, the live version of the article appears not to mention IAC
• From what I can see, the WMF invited you to use OTRS only to complain about other OTRS users; My OTRS access rights do not include the -q queue though
• I am not aware of any such policy
• Yes. This is a private website, therefore you have to follow the rules of the website, which say that Everyone is equal

As far as legal threats go, "defamation" and "slander" have very specific meanings, and are often not appreciated by many of the community, so I would avoid them whenever possible. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I filed this as a behavioural matter, not a privacy/defamation one. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The account in question, HRA1924, indicates on its talk page that it "does not necessarily accept Misplaced Pages's Terms and Conditions". Any user which admits to being a role account, which throws around legal threats while denying that they are legal threats, and which does not accept the terms of use of the website should be indef blocked. If they want to work to resolve problems within the rules, they can do so, but otherwise they have no inherent right to edit here. BMK (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about this issue. I don't know what a "role account" is either, but anyone, such as user:HRA1924, who was (i.e. literally) born yesterday (on Misplaced Pages,) and who in his fifth or sixth edit has appeared on ANI and has written a twelve-point memorandum, looks suspicious to me. Sitush is being quite kind with these guys. The lead of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, for example, describes the organization as a "revolutionary" organization. In reality, they were a bunch of young men, only vaguely socialist, who had created a cult around sacrificing their lives violently fighting the British. They were part terrorist, part revolutionary, part cult, part idealistic youth, and part disturbed youth, whose real contribution to India's nationalist struggle was somewhere between zero and negligible. That is what the scholarly sources say. In India these days, it has become fashionable to discredit Gandhi and idolize these men. So, now they are suddenly "revolutionary" with deep knowledge of Marx, Engels, Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Paris Commune, Bakunin, Lenin, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see

• "Mediation is voluntary. Mediation aims to settle a question about Misplaced Pages content through guided discussion. Its result therefore requires the consensus of the participants in a dispute. Forced participation is incompatible with the nature of the mediation process, so we cannot compel a party to participate in mediation. However, the refusal by an editor to take part in mediation in conjunction with a refusal to discuss one's position vis-à-vis content may constitute edit warring or disruptive editing, to which the response is usually blocking by an administrator."
• Mediation is the ultimate formal dispute resolution policy at Misplaced Pages. Sitush was granted every opportunity to participate, after having agreed - in fact we all waited for him to recover his health - he refused to participate to defend his edits - which are at the heart of the content dispute. The final order in the mediation is that the mediation is closed because other parties did not participate. So legally speaking - the content dispute is decided in IAC's favour. Misplaced Pages is very much bound by India's laws in addition to US laws within India - WMF has a registered domain "wikipedia.in" which is the gateway portal for Indian users to access Misplaced Pages services.
• We agree that Misplaced Pages community is not competent to decide legal issues or jurisdictions. Lets leave matters to the WMF, now that the content issue is decided in IAC's favor and we are processing the deletion of the now settled content dispute under our pre-existing Email/OTRS. The OTRS volunteers were "incompetent" (which is not a deregatory term) at the time because there was no clarity then on the content dispute - unlike the present time.
• Insofar as ROLE is concerned, our real-world identity is verified through the email/OTRS exchanges or any other additional mode WP chooses to verify us by. HRA1924 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A word from the dispute resolution community about the voluntary nature of dispute resolution: I'm a very frequent volunteer at all levels of content dispute resolution. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary and no one may be compelled to participate. To say that backwards, failing to participate in DR is never a matter which should cause an editor to be blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. That does not mean, however, that such a failure cannot be taken into consideration by an administrator or by the community in deciding whether or not an editor is editing in a disruptive manner or in a manner which is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Failing to take part in DR is not alone disruptive, just as failing or refusing to discuss one's edits is not alone disruptive, but it can be part of a disruptive pattern. On the other hand the reasons for failing to take part in DR can also be taken into consideration: Frustration with another editor's disruptive editing or other misbehavior can certainly justify a desire to simply not engage with it further. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, just trying to provide a conceptual framework. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks "Transporterman". We would like to supplement your comments. (BTW, its nice to deal with this is a neutral way as you do). Ours is a complex content dispute with many dimensions and sourcing issues, BLP violations (and potential BLP violations - when we consider that the individual's named in the article are not co-terminus with the organisation(s) they are affiliated to) in fact you had expressed exactly this on the archives of the article's talk page. It is undeniable (no matter what Sitush says) that our case has serious BLP, privacy, pptential libel issues. This is not the page to continue a concluded mediation dispute. The WMF has arranged the voluntary mediation facility where we could discuss/resolve the content dispute with the content's author Sitush. This is a structured formal process conducted under the supervision of a nominated highly experienced Admin like yourself. Sitush voluntarily agreed to participate. After the issue were framed (which is only the first step in a long process) he opted out and refrained from defending his edits. His reasons for opting out are irrelevant as he could have asked the Mediator to control / manage the process, or the Mediator could have intervened suo-moto. The factual position now is that Sitush has refused to defend his edits, his sources or controvert the counter-sources we provided in Misplaced Pages's ultimate formal dispute resolution process, and hence either WP community or WMF is obliged to delete his contributions to the article about us. We also point out that Sitush had repeatedly tried to "POV_FORK" the article whoich we objected to as we are the legal right users and trademark holder for "India Against Corruption". Sitush also failed to controvert the sources we provided wherein the BLP subjects have refuted the statements added in by Sitush. HRA1924 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "refuse to defend" my edits. I'd been defending them for months and at the stage you are referring to I simply gave up repeatedly restating my position and repeatedly trying to explain our policies to you. I know that you do not accept those of our policies that you dislike but you cannot pick and choose. I specifically requested that someone pinged me if there was a new development, rather than us going round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the organization to delete the items as any editor can delete them if they are indeed BLP violations. That being said since this is a huge land mine area you will want to ensure they actually are BLP violations. If something is considered unpopular but still can be linked to reliable sources it may be included in the wiki as it meets the threshold for inclusion. If it is poorly sourced, the source has been misrepresented, or it utilizes original research would all be extremely prevalent ways to identify if something would violate these problems. So in short if you can show that the statement hasn't been attributed to a source BLP rules but if the individual has simply rehashed what an RS says it doesn't matter if it is unfavorable. Further legal threats are never the answer since all you are trying to do is create a chilling effect to get an end goal. Someone that is honestly looking into improving an article on anything should be done with reliable sources, patience and above all understanding that other people on here do as best they can with what they have on hand. If you feel that it paints a subject poorly you could always dispute neutrality and ask for an RFC which would yield much better results than wondering in and threatening people. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Groups and organizations (official or unofficial) can't have Misplaced Pages accounts which are for individual editors. Bottom line, I'd drop the "we" and allow only one user to access this account or you're likely to find yourself blocked. Liz 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time over this pseudolegalistic bollocks? Block HRA1924 indefinitely per WP:NLT and WP:NOTHERE, and be done with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing now; there's no need to waste our time on bullshit like this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Add issues with the user name as well. "We" is used several times - it definitely represents the group and may (or may not) be shared. And the disclaimer on their user page about not necessarily accepting the terms and conditions is interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hacker threat today

I received this beauty today:

"we the hackers of anonymous Philippines has been inform by one of our members that you and your so called friends in Misplaced Pages has been bullying him and prosecuting him and his articles in your web page,well in response we the hackers of Anonymous Philippines has decided to teach you guys a lesson so be ready with your deletion buttons so that you could clean the mess we will do to your beloved web page we don't stand for online bullying so be ready for war-hackers of Anonymous Philippines"

Looks like some people have nothing better to do with their lives. User indeffed. -- Alexf 13:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this came from or why, but it may be related to User:Malusia22. If anybody is familiar with this case (I am not), feel free to comment. -- Alexf 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar threat aimed at Gogo Dodo after he blocked one of the Malusia socks. "War-hackers"? I suspect it's just one person. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Some people may think they can break Misplaced Pages, but that is impossible. They'll learn it. Tito☸Dutta 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the thing about the internet. I can claim to be Liam Neeson with a particular set of skills, but that doesn't make it true. (Spoiler: it isn't.) Admins get some interesting threats but I have to hand it to you, Alexf, that's probably more entertaining than anything I've ever received. -- Atama頭 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can top that, and from right here on Misplaced Pages. In response to my including cited negative views of the subject in a biographical article I was the subject of the following: There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Misplaced Pages to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting 's work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with 's defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.". Later in the same dispute I was listed as a "Judenrat" (one of the Jews who assisted concentration camp guards), a "blatant liar" and other similar epithets, and a statement that a suit had been filed with the US Attorney's office to prevent me posting such criticism. DES 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of beans -- there's nothing like a hat to focus attention on a section of the wall of text known as ANI. WP:BEANS is generally something that should not be wikilinked, per beans. (Don't say "Don't stuff beans up your nose!"!!!) Beans is mostly about not making a post in the first place -- if you really think another's post is just shouldn't be there, remove the darn thing and let them know why (usually on their talk page, by email if absolutely necessary). NE Ent 11:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is all related to Malusia22 and their effort to get an article published about their gang related to their fraternity. I also got this hilarious death threat a few hours before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll should see the stuff we get at the WMF. I have a literal "pile o' crazy" that goes from your run of the mill tin-foil hattery all the way up to "seriously? you wrapped the LETTER in tin foil to protect me from the tiny little robots that live in meat and stole February? Thanks, i think." Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh, Philippe (WMF), please don't exaggerate. It was only the last two (or three) days of February that were stolen. BTW, where did they go? Cullen Let's discuss it 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, the tiny little robots got them. You aren't paying attention, are you? :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I knew it! It was THEM that stole it! -- Alexf 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Discovery of Downs Syndome cause reattributed by 'edit-a-thon'

Involved Editors: User:Rosieredfield and User:ChristophThomas

Involved Events: Misplaced Pages "Edit-a-thon"

Involved Pages: Jérôme_Lejeune and Marthe_Gautier

I would like to bring to your attention the page of Jérôme_Lejeune, a french scientist who discovered that an extra chromosome on the 21st pair caused downs syndrome. Very recently a group of people linked to the Misplaced Pages "edit-a-thon" have gone and edited this article and added links to interviews with a Marthe_Gautier who claims she discovered this. It's very troubling that an edit-a-thon is editing wikipedia in such a way.

I note that the only evidence this was discovered by either of them is;

J. Lejeune, M. Gautier et R. Turpin « Les chromosomes humains en culture de tissus » C. R. Acad. Sciences 26 janvier 1959.

In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer. M Gautier has just recently come out in interviews claiming that she made the discovery, however this is unverifiable and only happened after his death. Misplaced Pages's policy of No Original Research should come into play here and allow the page Marthe_Gautier to be deleted or stubbed pending a re-write, and for Jérôme_Lejeune to stay in its current form, as it is rolled back to 2013 Nov 18, which is before the edit-a-thon was created.

I note that the page for Marthe_Gautier is poorly written and reeks of argument. I am worried about an incoming edit war from the people from the "Edit-a-thon"

I think someone needs to monitor these pages for misleading edits and have a talk with named editors. Also, 'edit-a-thon's' for a particular cause, for any reason, are not constructive. Especially if a cause is political in nature, i.e., women in STEM fields.

Best Regards, Luke Martinez L32007 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Marthe Gautier article - it should probably be moved to AfC until it is ready for primetime. However a dispute over credit for discovery could very well be notable - keeping in mind we need to correct the WP:NPOV issues in the article. Some of the sources compel me to think this article should be on wikipedia in some form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Women in STEM fields" is a political cause now? Liz 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit-a-thon is political in nature? They wouldn't be doing vandalising pages to promote falsehoods if they weren't feminists, what's the problem with calling it as i see it? L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've contested your proposed deletion on principle. You put a prod tag with the summary, "Added deletion request. Do not remove. Discuss on talk page." Proposed deletions must be uncontroversial, and if anyone objects at all to the page deletion then the prod is invalid. Ironically, your proposed deletion was self-defeating because you were effectively admitting that it was controversial by demanding that nobody remove the tag (which you cannot do) and asking people to discuss the deletion on the article talk page (which, again, demonstrates the controversy of the deletion). If you want a deletion discussion for that article (which I don't object to) you must take it to articles for deletion. -- Atama頭 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note taken, Thanks for that, I'll look to that. The page is poorly written and has redundent titling. Also Something needs to be done about the content, if she isn't telling the truth, and the only evidence we have is her interviews, she's not notible for wikipedia. L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@L32007 : "In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer." there is no such claim in the sources you cite - if you would have spend the time reading the source you would know that. And no - I am not anywhere near any group - if you would have had a look at my contributions you would know that too. The controversy is out in the open for a while now (since 2009) and has been in each reputable French newspaper (Le Monde, Liberation, La Croix) Of course you would have known this is if ... christophe (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I don't disagree with Atama at all. I only suggested move to AfC because the article is so clearly under construction currently. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The source i cite is the publication by J. Lejeune OF his discovery, now that he is deceased M. G. is coming out to newspapers and going for interviews -- that can't be a reliable source, just because it was said in a newspaper by the person who claims credit now, 50 years after the discovery does not make it true. As for your claim that you are not in such group, please see the | relevant section of the groups page. L32007 (talk)

oh sorry Lejeune's own publication ... in that case! I was referring to the original publication of the discovery. christophe (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a content dispute, not vandalism or bad faith edits and so, as Atama says, this conversation should be moved to the article talk page or, if that discussion isn't constructive, move to the dispute resolution process. It doesn't sound like there is any call here for admin action. Liz 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have participated in six or seven Edit-a-thons, and they are simply gatherings where experienced editors and newer editors meet to discuss editing Misplaced Pages, and then do some editing. These events help in recruiting and training productive new editors. If 20 or 30 people are sitting around tables editing on laptops, it should not be surprising that some of the contributions will be excellent, and some will be . . . not so good. Don't blame the Edit-a-thon concept for some poor edits, as Randy in Boise and his legions of POV pushing clones are perfectly capable of making poor edits while all alone. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo vandalism

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

Hi, I noticed some strange edits from Fanboy165. User added a few pictures to articles, but the pictures have nothing to do with the subjects. Here are the photos in Commons. The photo at Fijit Friends doesn't depict a toy, it depicts Dora the Explorer. The photo that was added to Blue's Room is a screen capture from the bottom of Amazon.com. No blue dog is depicted. (I have nominated this pic for deletion, but not the others.) And this screencap doesn't depict anything of note, nor is it used anywhere of note. I don't believe the user is here to build an encyclopedia. For example, here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest reverting them, explaining why you did so, and tag the images on commons, as they are probably copyright violations to some degree, anyways. I wouldn't tag them as having ill-intent, but they seem to want to help, so we should give them the benefit of the doubt here before scaring them off. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at all of their edits, they are 95% vandalism; not "oops I didn't know" vandalism, but intentional vandalism. I've blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching that, as I didn't go in-depth into their edits before I wrote that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Levotb and slow-moving POV-pushing

Yesterday, I was doing some anti-vandalism patrolling on STiki, and I ran into the article for Al Melvin (politician), which was undergoing some vandalism at the time. It eventually was sorted out, but then I ran into Levotb (talk · contribs) and this edit. Again, it's nothing too extreme, but when I went back into their edit history, although they aren't as bad as some others, they have deliberately removed or mis-characterized information on the pages in order to fit their viewpoint. Edits such as this one (where they replaced "African American" with "black"), and this edit (where they replaced "Undocumented immigrants" with "Illegal aliens"), and this edit (where they removed all mentions of a lack of minorities in the film) show that something is up, and I was wondering if anyone thinks that they should be blocked for an obvious breach of policy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend you take this to WP:NPOVN. - Jorgath (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, as that page appears to be article issues, whereas this is for a specific user. Also, since this is vandalism in some ways, I wanted to make a note of it here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

President of Ukraine issue

This issue regards the article President of Ukraine. Mandz orp keeps adding "disputed" in the infobox for acting president Oleksandr Turchynov. They have done this so many times I would consider it edit warring. They have tried to make their point on the talk page but have no support from other users. In fact, many users have reverted, this including myself twice, and stated their opposition. I asked the user to gain a proper consensus to add "disputed" but they don't seem to care based on their most recent edit summary. Can an admin please remove the "disputed" from the infobox and temporarily protect the article, and explain to the user they must stop edit warring and discuss it until they have a consensus? Thank you. Fry1989 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I thank you for protecting the page, but can you please explain why you have not removed the "disputed" claim from the infobox while there clearly is no consensus for that? Fry1989 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I protected the "wrong version", obviously. I was acting to put a stop to a budding edit war without deciding that. Discussion among editors should continue and people should discuss what will happen when protection comes off. Three hours isn't very long. I'm available to look on or stay out, as people prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And I give any uninvolved admin permission to change that as Fry1989 discussed, if they think it best, or if the dispute is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you fully understand the problem. There is no consensus to add "disputed" to the infobox, not a single user supports this move by Mandz orp, but clearly this user has no intention of stopping adding "disputed" unless an admin is involved. With a complete lack of support, Mandz orp's insistence is already edit warring and vandalism, they have added "disputed" (or reverted back to Yanukovich as legitimate) to the article 8 times in the last 3 days against the will of many different users. That's why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. As I said on the discussion page, the issue isn't whether this user is right or wrong, it's that they have zero support. Fry1989 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, in fact I agree (Though not on vandalism) , but that was what was in existence when I protected and after this discussion, I don't want to edit through my own protection to change it. Anyone else want to weigh in?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed my protection. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain, as an admin, why I think what Wehwalt did was correct (and why it's necessary for administrators to protect the "wrong" version when protecting a page). An administrator should not use their tools at any article where they are involved. Being involved means taking a side in a dispute or trying to expand or "fix" an article. If an administrator changes an article, and then protects it, they are basically misusing their tools by forcing their preferred change to the article to be in place when a non-administrator can't undo it. I think it should be obvious as to why that would be a bad thing. So an administrator who protects a page will leave it in the state it was in, making no judgment as to the suitability of the content, but simply preventing others from changing it (usually to stop an edit war). The only exception is in cases where the content of the article must be changed immediately, in the case of vandalism, violations of our WP:BLP policy, or some other problem that urgently needs to be fixed. Since this is not one of those cases, Wehwalt was following proper procedure by protecting the "wrong" version until the current dispute is sorted out on the discussion page. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I often take a different tack, reverting back to whatever version existed before the edit war began (whether I agree with it or not), then protecting. Kind of "forcing" WP:BRD. I've found that this is slightly less likely to reward an edit warrior who's edit warring against consensus, although there are no guarantees. If someone is edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll warn them and then block them if they continue, instead of protecting the page. But in this case, I'm not actually seeing any consensus one way or the other, it seems to be one against one. I'm concerned that the person being reported is pretty clearly an SPA, but on the other hand, this is a pretty harmless thing to have in the article until an actual consensus emerges. So, more eyeballs and more discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I can see that. But that pre-supposes that protection was the right course of action. I'm not involved in that particular issue but have seen this scenario and this use of protection several times. Surely, if the problem is one disruptive/POV editor trying to override consensus of several other editors and force through change and if the neutral application of protection results in the version preferred by that one disruptive editor, then surely protection is not the right administrative action. Other measures eg blocking the disruptive editor shoukd be taken. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My thought was that it was pretty much what Floq said, the usual suspects in a slow-burning edit war, and that such is a time to disregard the behavior because it's senseless to spend the time deciding who is in the right when the important thing is that it be worked out, perhaps with Wikiprojects notified to provide more eyes. That was my focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no place in such a discussion about methods, but I do thank everyone for their interest and most of all in removing "disputed" as it is not supported by a consensus. Fry1989 00:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If full protection is the answer, protecting the lastest wrong version is the best path per Wehwalt / Atama. However, it this case , it was clearly one editor 3rr-"extended" (3 reverts ~26 hours -- close enough for Misplaced Pages work). A block at the time of protection wouldn't have been appropriate due to no 3rr warning (since taken care of by Beyond My Ken, but posting the warning would have been the next step. NE Ent 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Noor Pur Baghan

• Noor Pur Baghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sajjad Altaf (talk · contribs)

Long term ownership and edit warring over the article, which Sajjad Altaf created and built largely from original research. The problem appears to have originated with the editor, and article, receiving mention in the New York Times. Rather than acknowledge the COI issues, there are accusations of bad faith directed at user Sitush. Without having observed the longer exchange between them, the appearance is that Sajjad may be inclined to this kind of editing, and believes other editors are trying to sabotage him or the project. JNW (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an edit warring on my behalf as i do not think i broke any 3RR rule here, if any one of you administrators observe what happened today was that i opposed an article from being deleted which was proposed for deletion by Sitush. As soon as i opposed that proposal, Sitush started reverting all of my edits made recently on three pages Noor Pur Baghan, Maula Jatt and Dulla Bhatti, to me this was an act of vengeance not of a professional editor. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sajjad, edit warring is not synonymous with WP:3RR. I make many edits to many articles and you'll note that I've edited Noor Pur Baghan before today and I completely revamped Dulla Bhatti recently. I doubt anyone would dispute that the latter article is far, far better than it was before my revamp; some might quibble about the state of the former article but, hey, you cannot just write anything on Misplaced Pages, even if it is with the charitable intention of promoting a nondescript village somewhere (as you said on the article talk page).

Yes, I was checking your contributions but I was doing so because I vaguely recalled seeing your name before & in relation to some problematic stuff (turned out to be because of the NPB article). There is nothing wrong with checking things out, especially if there have been causes for concern, and especially given that all these items have been watchlisted and, if you examine my edits closely, you'll see that I regularly maintain items on my list even though sometimes it takes me a few days to get to them. Hey, maybe the dedicated Sitush ANI will get its first report soon.- Sitush (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're here, I also have a question re: this edit . Do we include honorifics in article titles, based on the insistence of an article's creator? Here, too, I'm wondering about ownership and original research in a regrettably poorly sourced article. JNW (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should not. -- SMS 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor Iqbal Azeem is known as Professor Iqbal Azeem, i have never heard of referring to him as Iqbal Azeem, it's not an honorific anymore, it is part of the name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Common name is what a person referred to as most. It's like Alexander The Great, you will have to remove "The Great" from his name because it is an honorific but as per WP:COMMONNAME, you won't remove because it has become part of his name. Same way Professor has become part of his name. Iqbal Azeem could be anybody. Iqbal Azeem does not identify the person known as Professor Iqbal Azeem. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, problematic stuff you are referring to is being mentioned in NYTimes. I know it's hard to digest. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't Sitush, it's the adherence to unsourced content and original research. It's not how Misplaced Pages works. JNW (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand that but i still feel i am being singled out and targeted by Sitush, my vote to keep Phaphra was in good faith and it was not because Sitush proposed it for deletion. I honestly did not know that there are some well known authors whose work is not being accepted by Misplaced Pages. All i am saying is that the flurry of edits that he did reverting my edits after that was in response to that. It should not have been that way. He should not have made a personal vendetta. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if you're correct--and I don't think that you are--the situation would be defused immediately if you followed policy and removed the unsourced content you've added to articles. There are no editors forcing you to ignore Misplaced Pages guidelines, so it sounds as if you're acting against your own best interests out of stubbornness. JNW (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hosting a personal attack by another editor on a Talk page.

Hi. For several weeks now, I have been followed and harassed by an IP hopper making a huge range of unsubstantiated claims about my editing. This IP hopper has now posted a personal attack about me on the Talk page of User talk:Timelezz. This personal attack includes naming me in the thread heading. I have twice asked User talk:Timelezz over the last few days to delete this entire personal attack thread, but they have refused. I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz. Thank you for considering this request.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Timelezz requested advice at the help desk on this issue. I don't see any action being taken on it. Personally if it were about me, i would prefer to make a single response to such comments and then leave them there. If they are indeed completely unfounded, anyone who looks will be able to see this and the poster will only harm his or her rep, such as it may be. However, you are not required to do that. Perhaps if the thread was edited to make the heading more neutral, and remove the provocative language? DES 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've advised Timelezz and others who have received similar messages to remove the personal attacks, or to explain why they feel it is appropriate to allow their talkpages to by used by a blocked user to make repeated attacks on other editors. By the way, I've blocked the latest IP sock, who has fixated on DrChrissy as an opponent, and who is treating animal rights topics and Misplaced Pages in general as battlegrounds. A previous episode in January led to extensive rangeblocks that took out a lot of Western Australian IPs, and I have yet to discern an agenda other than axe-grinding. I think at least six IPs and an /18 range have been blocked in this month's episode. As Drmies and others noted in January, this is well past disruptive. I removed the attack on Timelezz's page on grounds of PA, DENY, etc., but Timelezz restored it and admonished me that he could manage his own page himself, thank you, so I let it stand rather than indulge in a pointless dispute. I will note that, while editors are given more latitude over their talkpages, it's not infinite, and it's still Misplaced Pages's talkpage in the end. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now I've blocked another IP manifestation at CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage,who has his own interpretation of DES's remark . Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - your continued attention to this is very much appreciated.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• An IP hopper has been abusing an editor for months—see here and here and here and here and here. There have been several other reports at places like WP:RSN and WP:COIN where the IP has used inflammatory headings and extravagant claims to attack editors. Timelezz apparently thinks that their talk page is available as a safe haven for the IP, however Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in free speech or liberty, and talk pages are not available to host attacks. If the IP wants to accuse an editor of something, they need to use moderate language, neutral headings, and do it on a suitable noticeboard—not article or user talk pages. One unfortunate aspect of encouraging the IP by restoring their attacks is that it means the IP will never learn how to collaborate, and so may never make useful edits. If the IP received a consistent message, they might adapt. Would an uninvolved admin please explain this to Timelezz and ensure that a reasonable outcome occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now another WA IP here, now removed , Drmies and I are part of DrCrissy's "gang". This one blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion, as a certified sock of me, and me being on Dr. Crissy's payroll, you are waaay too involved to be making such a block. Next time I'll take care of it. On a less serious note, I hate being given reasons to support registering as a requirement to edit. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While the IP range is allocated to a company registered in Perth, Western Australia, it is likely that this is accurate, namely that the IP is in Sydney. However, that's not important—can we please focus attention on whether an editor has the right to restore an attack on their talk page. The IP is using User talk:Timelezz to post unfounded accusations. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the short answer to DrChrissy's question "I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz", yes ? DrChrissy could have deleted that comment per WP:TPO since it is a personal attack and they don't need anyone's permission. That is my understanding anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I think, but the problem is that the owner of the talk page reverted the removal of the attack (Please, don't touch MY Talk page), and left a rather strong message on the talk page of the offending editor (Moderating Talk pages). Further, by restoring an attack, Timelezz has endorsed the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple: the offending posting was made in evasion of a block, so it can be removed. If Timelezz wants it restored, he can only do so by personally endorsing everything said in it. But if he does so, he will be treated as responsible for every form of abuse in it – i.e. he will be treated as if he himself was attacking and harassing the complainant. In other words, if he restores it one more time, I will block him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the resolution. As I've said before, I doubted whether this was to be considered a personal attack. I was against other users moderating my Talk page as long as I doubt it is a personal attack. I've said to respect moderator's decision. I notice that a moderator agreed that, other than requested, removal of the whole thread is unappropriate. The moderator removed some sections that s/he considered a personal attack. Of course I abide to that. I think this approach is very well in line with Misplaced Pages:USERTALKBLOG. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:K6Ka supporter

Google Alerts sent me an e-mail when they found a new search match when one Google's "k6ka". Apparently, someone created a new Misplaced Pages account with the username K6Ka supporter. Here's what concerns me:

1. On the user's userpage, they state: "I am here to stop vandalizim in Misplaced Pages with the help of my friend K6Ka. Come and support me as well. Thank you, Siddharth"

I don't have a friend named Siddharth, nor do I know someone IRL with that name. A lot of my friends do know that I have a Misplaced Pages account and that I fight vandalism, but I simply can't imagine them doing something like this.

2. The username has "k6ka" in it. This concerns me a lot because a lot of people would think this is my sockpuppet. I want to clarify right now that this is NOT a sockpuppet account, and that a CheckUser is welcome to check.

I will keep an eye on this suspicious user's contributions, but I'm quite positive that whoever created this account is not someone I know personally. I would ask that the owner of this account, if they wish to edit Misplaced Pages, to abandon this account and create a new one, or use an existing one that hopefully has a less concerning username if possible. The last thing I want is to be blocked for sockpuppetry that I didn't do. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure (would someone please clarify), but in the future I think you would just need to put a brief statement at WP:UAA saying that the account was impersonating/attacking you. Whether or not the "supporter" can make up some fantastic story is not relevant, the account just needs to be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I have a different take on this:

1. It's clearly NOT imitation - the use of their "real name" on the userpage shows that, and it shows their intentions. Any admin would typically see that, and not consider it to be your sock
2. People who may have interacted with you on articles (possibly even while editing anonymously) may often feel some form of brotherhood with you based on similar views, and think of you as a "friend"
3. I do have a minor concern that the editor may already have an account and this was created as some form of alternate account - which while techically fine, might occasionally run afoul of the WP:SOCK#LEGIT aspects

• The short version is this: you have a fan. Feel blessed. Most of us don't have any fans whatsoever. ES&L 11:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sudhan

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

A couple of editors ""sitush"" and "Smsarmad" have consistently deleted everything on the above referenced article due their personal prejudices, this article has been edited by numerous editors over the years and now only has a few lines due to these editors behavior. I request that they be banned from editing Trueblood (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sudhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Currently, the most recent edit is by Trueblood786 (diff) and that appears to add a bunch of text sprinkled with "citation needed". There is no recent discussion on the talk page, but there is a claim from August 2012 that general sanctions apply to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards