Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:07, 21 May 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions. See User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80#Please take a look at this for a previous discussion I had with administrator User:HJ Mitchell.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to follow me to other articles and is always disagreeing with me. Here is his latest edit to undo my edit. How did you find that article? He followed me to that article. I previously told him to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages but he is continuing. At the chiropractcic talk page I explained we should use secondary sources but he claims the the sources are great and wants to proceed in adding primary sources to the article when we already have secondary sources with similar information. He should not be allowed to continue this behaviour. User:HJ Mitchell previously indef-blocked User:Jayaguru-Shishya for disruptive behaviour. He is continuing to comment on me on the talk page rather than solely focusing on article content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. You already asked that on 6 May 2013 at administrator Doc James's Talk page, where you appeared all of a sudden commenting my post that had nothing to do with you. I even asked you there to provide a complete list of the supposed articles where I have been following you to? So far, you have refused to answer me that. You did all that on an administrator's Talk page, but still you bring these claims to WP:ANI even before noticing me about it (on my Talk page 18:52; on WP:ANI 18:48).

As you can see from the Talk page, I have been contributing to the article with respect to new sources that can be used in the article. Those have also received support from other editors. As you can see, I've been also requested for collaboration by other editor in order to develop the article further.

All the edits I have made in the articles have been briefly discussed at the article Talk page. It is actually you whose editing behaviour have been discussed at two articles already: Traditional Chinese medicine, and Chiropractic. For the latest edit you were referring to, it's been discussed at the Talk page. It seems it is three editors against one in that discussion.

Few words about your former editing behaviour. You have been banned earlier] for edit warring the alternative medicine articles. Also, quite recently you have been warned by administrator EdJohnston for edit warring the very alternative medicine articles here: ,

as well as by another administrator, Tiptoety, here: . "...Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring... //// ...I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions..." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Quack's interpretation. As his history suggests he in fact is being disruptive and claiming ownership of alt-med articles. This seems to be an attempt to cast jayguru in a negative light when in fact he has been respectful and playing by the rules on the talk pages. Also, quack is often trying to censor and ban people who disagree with his POV to limit the debate so he can continue to own alt-med articles. DVMt (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved but you have not moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a primary source and simplified the wikilink but User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverted my edits and removed the tags for the primary source and he has falsely accused me of violating 3RR. User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to be disruptive. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread: . There is a complete summary of your behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya is continuing to make false accusations against me. I started a discussion about the primary source and wikilink but he is continuing to refuse to collaborate. He is not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack you have a long Hx of disruptive editing at CAM articles, have been warned as recently as of yesterday and consistently try to discredit other editors who have a differing POV than yours. This is a bogus report on Jayguru and it's simply an attempt to smear and get him banned from the articles at which he edits. Looking at the past, I don't see Jayguru being reported in the past, whereas yours has been constant since 2008. You broke the conditions of your wiki bail and do so with increasing boldness. When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, best to discuss it and resolve it as opposed to running to admins to try and do your dirty work. DVMt (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya made a fake 3RR report while your are continuing to misinterpret the situation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say block the user. Wales of Jimbo (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) — Wales of Jimbo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dwpaul 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent slander and personal attacks

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

Requesting comment admin action re the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) and Atlantictire (talk · contribs) in this AfD talkpage and this AN thread, where practically every single of their hate-filled, vitriolic posts includes unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text. Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay, and upon that being demonstrated, I immediately reversed my position completely amid repeated apologies. My own past conduct on the talk page was not exemplary, and will no doubt be cited here, but even after my sincere apologies and withdrawal the abuse continues unabated. I also do not think any gruff response I ever wrote can be compared to this sort of continuous torrent of hate speech.

I am reluctant to invite the literal crowd from the content dispute to inevitably arrive here opposing anything I say, but there's only so much abuse of this serious nature that anyone can take. In this latest thread, in addition to Markbernstein's standard fare, there's Atlantictire calling me a fanatic racist and suggesting I am mentally ill.

Atlantictire is a user blocked for previous personal attacks of this nature against me, during which time he created sock puppets to evade his block, and continued posting attacks on his talkpage, showing no remorse whatsoever up to this very point, maintaining that its my fault for frustrating him. Prior to his block he created a sock, Mazelov (talk · contribs), to "congratulate" me, and tell me to (quote) "get those Jew bastards!". Presumably as some kind of attempt at entrapment. He (a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer ) was blocked for repeatedly calling me a sock puppet, and you will find him doing the exact same thing in the linked discussions.

I was wrong. And I did, as it turned out, defend a compilation of sources that, though indisputably reliable as such, were taken from their use by a racist essay. It was a mistake I made, and many others who defended the article. MarkBernstein deliberately takes advantage of this to omit everyone's lack of knowledge as to the origin of the references, in order to repeatedly slander me (as well as implicitly everyone else who was ever opposed to deletion) as "defenders" of antisemitism and racism both. Atlantictire just likes to insult others on the project, and sees that as heroic. -- Director (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well. I can see there's some quite serious history here. Confining my analysis simply to the linked discussions, I believe the comments of MarkBernstein and Atlantictire are inappropriate and possibly defamatory. Having been part of clusterfuck AfDs along the lines of the Jews and Communism one that spawned this discussion, I know that things can really spin out of proportion fast. In light of that, I do not think blocking of any party is appropriate, because although blocks could issue, the important matter is resolving the AfD. Blocking will not repair the harm to the community caused by the comments, and though it will prevent further such comments from being made, I believe a stern final warning to all parties be made to stop indulging in personalities even if the accusation is defensible, non-defamatory criticism, or whatever, so the AfD can conclude with as little further disruption as possible. In the words of many a scolding grandmother: it takes two to tango. A trainwreck of this magnitude cannot be the result of one single party's misbehavior. If the participants cannot allow the AfD to conclude without further disruption, then blocks should be considered to protect its outcome. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I omitted to mention the AfD itself is not in question at this point. I myself changed my position to Delete, and the article has been blanked. The linked discussions have very little to do with the (inevitable) deletion of the article, esp. the AN thread, and the behavior at issue seems poised to continue on. -- Director (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director says he is facing "unsupported accusations of my being part of an antisemitic "group" or of knowingly having defended antisemitic text". I really struggle to understand how anyone could have read that article, or even the title of it, and not have seen instantly that it was a pure piece of anti-Semitic propaganda. It was pointed out over and over and over on the talk page that there is no connection between Jews and Communism, what the article was talking about was people who might be described as of Jewish heritage in Marxist-Leninist movements in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 20th century, that is not the same as "Jews and Communism" globally and at all times and there was never any source given for making any connection between "Jews and Communism". Director says "Of course I had no way of knowing the sources in question were cherry picked by Potocnik from some antisemitic essay", well he ought to have known because I said over and over on the talk page that the stuff about Jews killing the Tsar was only found on extremist anti-Semitic websites, here I call it the "grossest anti-Semitic filth", and he and Producer, as he then was, threatened to "report" me or get me "sanctioned". A little research on my part revealed, to no surprise on my part, that that quote as well as many others in the article indeed came from an extremist anti-Semitic website. I did know what I was talking about, they would not listen. It is hard for me to get my head round the fact that Director sincerely believes that he is not anti-Semitic, however I do think that is the case. Some people are very very angry about all this right now, they are going to vent about it, it would be very wrong to "sanction" people for expressing their anger at the moment. I am very angry myself, but not really at Director, more at admins who saw this article and the discussion about it on two long threads on this board and just ignored blatant anti-Semitic propaganda being promulgated on this site. My advice to Director is to step back for a few days, take a wiki break, if people are still calling you names in a week or two, then you can try to stop it, but now is not a good time.Smeat75 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I request forbearance while the AfD, which is important to the future and, perhaps, the survival of Misplaced Pages, proceeds. Beyond that, I stand on my record here: I have keynoted and chaired wikiSym, I have written wikis and nurtured them, and i have done my best, and more, for this project. I deserved better of you. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Smeat75 and throughout the whole time I read the discussions I felt and thought exactly as he described, word by word. I don't think anyone should be sanctioned by either being angry or thinking that Director is anti-semitic after all the heavy process everyone had to go through for something so simple and obvious to happen, which is the deletion of a blatant anti-semitic article. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Charming missives from Director: MarkBernstein (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Skipping the content issues, I think Smeat is absolutely right that the solution, given the acrimonious nature of the entire situation surrounding the AfD, is taking a few days to collect and reflect. Doing so is going to be infinitely better than diving headlong into trying to correct any place you've been wronged. Just as there is no deadline with respect to the encyclopedia, nobody's likely to successfully argue that because you waited until after the AfD to complain about incivil comments made towards you, that you slept on your rights and forfeited the right to make a complaint. And by the same token, I believe that the overall issue between these parties is just not ripe for administrator intervention. Once the dust settles on the AfD, then we should look into whether sanctions are merited for behavior in its midst. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the place for requesting comment on editors but for requesting action. But the place for discussion is the open AN thread. If you want to complain about comments made there, make the complaint there. Since the cause of the dispute is an article which will probably be deleted, it may be that the problem will disappear once that is done. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I supposed to now work to convince everyone I'm not a mentally deranged fanatical racist who's also an antisemite, based on someone saying so, in order that my being called such would be viewed as inappropriate?

I defended scholarly sources that were and are, of themselves, entirely reliable. Myself and a dozen others were fooled by that fact. But no, in order for me not be a free target for personal attacks, I should have been psychic, concluding that they must have been taken from the references of an antisemitic essay. Frankly I don't care what something looks like, I go by what I see in terms of evidence.

I said "comment", because I don't demand sanctions be necessarily taken. As long as the nonsense stops. -- Director (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin action

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

Requesting admin action against Atlantictire (talk · contribs) regarding his comments in this thread, and a review of of the conduct of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) as elaborated above, also with a mind to the possibility of sanctions for repeated slander.

"Comment" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that I am requesting an admin review of the actions of the two users, and the imposition of sanctions if that is felt necessary. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the AfD has closed, and the topic ban discussions have been closed as well. As such my concerns above regarding ripeness are themselves now moot. While I think Director would do well to avoid claiming there was slander (i.e., defamation) in the comments, so as to avoid concerns that he is making legal threats, I also believe that implying another editor is mentally ill is bad enough from a WP:NPA standpoint as to merit some sanction. That sanction, of course, should not be punitive, but preventative. I fear, however, that this specific complaint is not separable from the litany of complaints that have already been produced by the AfD participants. That is, it would likely be inappropriate to impose sanctions in a piecemeal fashion. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate to go about this piecemeal, or to propose punitive sanctions, but that's exactly what you've got over at AN. I am singled out in spite of both apologizing and wowing to stay away from the topic, and in spite of the whole mess being effectively over with the deletion of the article. What else am I to do? Prevention is all I'm after with this thread. I don't want an apology even, all I want is assurances that I won't have to read any more essays of manipulative character assassination. If the users aren't able to bring themselves to stop, then imo there obviously isn't much more than sanctions in terms of prevention. I'm not out for "revenge", but this is really getting out of hand there. -- Director (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Too angry. Give me 24 hours and I might be able to give you my account of what happened here. I only ask that you do a admin complaint board search for "Director" and "Direktor" to get a sense of who you're dealing with.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I think your best course of action, if you want to continue to be a productive editor and collaborate with others, is to put as much distance between yourself and this article as possible. That means dropping these complaints and moving on. I'm not saying that harsh words weren't spoken, it's just that you are not totally blameless, you fought hard for that article and against editors who stated their objections to it. Bringing up complaints against other editors means rehashing your participation in this article which just prolongs this episode. The discussion at WP:AN has been closed, you didn't receive a topic ban so chalk this up as a learning experience and let this go. Hopefully, in the future, you will not be dismissive of other editors' concerns and there will not be a repeat of this experience for you. Liz 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to indef block Atlantictire outright. Uploading racist material, attacking others with satire and sarcasm, casting aspersions. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As for MarkBernstein, he's been heated but no more than Director himself. I don't think sanctions are necessary.--v/r - TP 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  His behavior has been particularly atrocious, but perhaps with the article gone, this will all subside and everyone can calm down. If he follows the users he had beefs with into other topics and venues in the days to come, then throw the book at em. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  Fair enough.--v/r - TP 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  I've done a bit of thinking on this. I reiterate that my exposure to this incident has been limited to the very specific statements made at the AfD talk page that at least insinuate Director is mentally ill or harbors antisemitic beliefs. Nonetheless, I cannot for the life of me, under any set of facts short of Director himself openly stating that he is mentally ill and harbors antisemitic beliefs (and possibly even then), believe those statements are justifiable under WP:NPA. Whether sanctions are necessary and what those sanctions should be is likely beyond the scope of this discussion. Nonetheless, for the time being the offending parts of the AfD talk page should be redacted. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  On second thought...I didn't notice stuff like the grave-dancing going on at the AfD talk page, as that is (usually) a rarely-used part of the deletion process. I think people will have a hard time keeping their Evidence sections under limit at a potential Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I feel like making a tactical apology here? No. I do not. You’re going to need to block me or else Director, who suffered no consequences other than losing the Jews and Communism article he relentlessly defended for months, will forever complain about how I called him a racist and suffered no consequences.

Am I bitter and feeling hostile to Misplaced Pages right now? Oh yes. Are there editors, right now, more focused on the fact that I’m “being a rant” and "holding a grudge" than that it’s completely outrageous and horrifying that this article survived an AfD and a deletion review and, that probably the only reason Jews and Communism was able to be expunged from Misplaced Pages was because someone created a screenshot of the white supremacist site from which it came.

No one is innocent here, especially not editors like Tarc who defended the article with statements like this about people playing the “victim card,” and especially not anyone who thinks sparing Director a topic ban is a “good faith” decision after his role in all of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can make hay out of a long-redacted-upon-request comment, then knock yourself out, sport. I'm fairly confident that most who look into what has transpired over the last week/month will see you as one of the most egregious agent provocateurs of this affair. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down here, Tarc . There's no reason to call Atlantictire an Agent provocateur; in fact, nothing could be less plausible. An agent provocateur craftily entices someone into a rash act. Director hardly needs to be enticed, and Atlantictire over-the-top derogation could scarcely be less suited to such a task. Atlantictire's anger is palpable -- he highlights it himself -- but you have no particular cause to be angry or to fling accusations about. (And isn't it strange how so many defenders of Jews and Communism are so worried about agents and conspiracies? Why would that spring to mind? Oh wait...)

There is a reason to Atlantictire's angry rhyme. As I see it, Atlantictire is trying to force Misplaced Pages's admins onto the horn of a dilemma. Atlantictire is wrong on policy; he is breaking the rules. Director is simply in the wrong, defending a page about the international Jewish conspiracy behind Communism because he didn't know -- how could anyone have known? -- it was anti-semitic. The inclination of the admin closing the AfD was, I believe, to give both Director and Atlantictire a lot of WP:ROPE, to watch and wait. Atlantictire, I think, wants to force a settlement now. "Censure Atlantictire for bad manners," he says, "or ban Director for bad acts."

Unlike the proposals to delete the page, which should have been an easy call, this one is not easy. Misplaced Pages’s inclination to narrow legalism would be to act against Atlantictire, who is clearly violating and clearly says he intends to violate rules -- fairly minor and arcane rules, to be sure, but rules -- while leaving Director for another day. In this forum that might be a tempting resolution. But I expect Atlantictire is not thinking of this forum; if he alone is censured, a broader audience will see that Misplaced Pages acted against Atlantictire for being mean to someone who defended an anti-semitic page, but took no action against that defender. The optics of that are terrible for the project. Of course, punishing Atlantictire by depriving him of editing privileges might be satisfying -- especially to those who value their editing privileges highly -- but I suspect Atlantictire might be placing a lower value on them than would the average admin. (I have no knowledge of these matters beyond reading what the editors have written, and I may be misinterpreting Atlantictire's intent.)

I write this because I think it is an interesting problem Atlantictire has posed, and it would be sad if the project blundered here by not understanding the question it was being asked. I really have no immediate idea how the project should respond. As should be clear, none of this has anything at all to do with Director's risible claim above that I have slandered him. It seems to me that someone might have mention WP:NLT, but I gather no one takes this specific accusation very seriously. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

And there you basically have it, folks. Imagine yourself being openly described as someone who should be abused and insulted as a matter of moral choice. Who quite deserves to be "outlawed" with regard to our "antiquated", "legalistic", basic norms of behavior.

It would be more appropriate to describe MarkBerstein as the agent provocateur, "craftily enticing" others into a reaction based on a quite "crafted" perspective, voiced in his pamphleteer-style, manipulative essays, such as the one directly above. Note how he says I am "in the wrong", as if I still argue against the article's deletion. I do not, and I argued for it: to still say that I "am" in the wrong, implies that I am still in favor of the article, i.e. that I am an antisemite. And admins should be ashamed of themselves to protect an antisemite from continuous, unrepentant abuse because of some antiquated "rules".

Thing is, folks, I really don't think I should have to take any more of this on account of MarkBernstein's warped personal perceptions, whether or not they be couched in these "moral appeals". Indeed, their repeated expression is a textbook personal attack in and of itself, all the more serious because of the terms in which it is framed: "The choice is yours, Misplaced Pages!", "Decide now!", "Are you Nazis?! then prove you're not!", etc. -- Director (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since my advice has gone unheeded...I will offer some more. Your choices here are limited, Director.

• 1) Let this incident go and move on, continuing to be a productive editor
• 2) Fight fire with fire and, inevitably, find yourself blocked
• 3) Stop editing Misplaced Pages

Of course, I recommend #1 as the best step. But continuing to argue here is not helping your case and could result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Liz 18:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, got your take the first time, no need to repeat yourself. If the community feels I should "inevitably" be sanctioned for something, then obviously I should be sanctioned. My goal here is to put a stop to this behavior. I don't want to be back here in three weeks when Atlantictire again calls me a psycho or an "antisemitic crank" or whatever. Remember this is already a repeat performance, these fellas openly claim they're not doing anything wrong, and that they should be allowed to continue. Its a little too much. -- Director (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The message this sends is that it is A-OK for Bernstein, Atlantictire, USChick, et al, to behave as nastily and as vilely (and by any amount diff-checking, they have) as humanly possible as long as they feel the end result is just. This is completely contrary to years' worth of Arbcom and such decisions, where in a dispute as entrenched as this, the behavior of ALL parties is up for judgement. If Director or Producer or whoever feels aggrieved by other editors, it is pretty unfair for you to chalk it up to just deserts, so, look into this editor's complaint in a fair and unbiased manner please, or step aside and let someone else do so. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? After you said earlier in this conversation "perhaps with the article gone, this will all subside and everyone can calm down"? Your comments are remarkably inconsistent. No admin has stated here that sanctions are forthcoming. I was just giving some advice, take it or leave it. Liz 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that these users who won't drop the stick, my statement yesterday was apparently overly-optimistic. Tarc (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe I have been either nasty or vile in this discussion, and throughout the AfD I have gone to some pains to avoid directly addressing, much less characterizing, other editors. On some occasions, where the discussion hinged on specific edits or specific claims, I did address those claims. I have said, and I continue to maintain, that Jews and Communism was correctly deleted, that the judgment of and the revulsion expressed by the such a large segment of the community was entirely appropriate, and that the failure of the community to reach that judgment more rapidly reflects a failure that merits regret, reflection and remedy. On considering the matter at leisure, I think you will conclude that with respect to me, at least, you are mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't want the community to be "legalistic" in its approach? Our project must "choose" to go by the spirit of the policy, et caetera.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, during the extremely heated debates on the Jews and Communism talk page, during which I have to say that you were instrumental in turning up the temperature, on at least two occasions you threatened me with being "reported" because I had severely criticized the content of the article. You conflated such criticism of the content as being criticism of the people who wrote those words. Now if I do say so myself, my criticism of the content was fully justified. What wasn't justified were your comments. All those talk page debates, plus the archives, are now deleted, so it's impossible to cite diffs, but I am sure there are ways of bringing them back to life, so that, if necessary, your conduct in that page, your fierce defense of the article, is again brought back into play. What I'm saying is, your continuing to fight World War III, after the last atomic bomb has exploded, really serves no useful purpose. That is what you are doing, you obviously feel continued resentment at how you were treated. I think that a lot of people feel that they were badly treated too. I think it's best that you drop this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to my original post all the way up there. -- Director (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw your original post, both here and in the one that was archived. Whichever way you slice it, this is a continuation of the "Jews and Communism Intergalactic Warfare." Look, people's feelings were bruised. Are you going to sit there and say you didn't hurt anybody's feelings? With all your defense, strenuous as it was? Come on. You're an honest guy. You know that while you stuck to this side of the rules, you were putting people's sensibilities through a meatgrinder by defending that article. You really were, and I think that when you read what Smeat had produced, when you experienced nausea, you understood or should have understood that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, time to move on. The conduct of certain users in that sorry affair, as noted by Tarc above, was attrocious. However, unlike Tarc, I don't think that there is any message that that was A-OK: that sort of thing gets logged in the collective WP memory. The continued histrionics by some of that group does you no damage. Sit back. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, I brought this up for our admins to review the conduct in question, and determine whether sanctions are justified in order to prevent further incidents. I'm not sure whether Mendaliv and TP intended to bring this matter to a close, if so, I certainly don't intend to press the issue unduly - but I can't be expected not to reply to comments that try and make us think allowing abuse in open defiance of our policies is some kind of "moral choice", and for the whole project no less. That is just appalling stuff. I am not necessarily pushing again for sanctions, but responding to yet another attack.

So in short, if we're done, we're done. It was not my intention to press on with demands for sanctions beyond receiving the requested input. I just hope we are indeed "done", call me crazy (or better yet don't :)), but I'm picking up a lot of hate here. So I will again say I feel terrible for my serious error in judgement, one which I will not repeat, but also that I will report further abuse. -- Director (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say this much: (beyond what I've stated above) I haven't looked at the whole dispute, the AfD, or what spawned it. I don't know who if anybody was in the wrong. But as DeCausa says, people remember these things, and have a strange ability to see when an editor is full of it. While this thread may not have turned out how you wanted, and the topic ban thread may not have turned out how they wanted, editors who are problematic tend to wind up back on ANI before long. And the next time the waters might not be muddied so easily. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That would definitely describe Director/Direktor, whose name crops up in over 150 ANI disputes, dating back to 2008, one of which resulted in a 6 month topic ban from Balkan-related articles.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And just because I like data, here's some on the number of times the yous and theys in this discussion have been mentioned in/participated in ANI disputes:

• Tarc: 300+
• Direktor: 150+
• Coretheapple: 15
• MarkBernstein: 9
• Atlantictire: 5 (percentage relating to Jews and Communism and involving Director/Direktor = 100%)--Atlantictire (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. I'm not trying to get into an argument but I understood you to say that bad apples show a pattern of behavior. Well, I've been here since 2010 and this is a first for me.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My point was this: If Director has a pattern, then let the pattern destroy him. Likewise, if you have a pattern, it will destroy you. But this dispute will destroy nobody, because the waters have been muddied too badly. You need to walk away from this. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You're telling me that I'm supposed to have faith in this process, that the editors who are chronically in ANI "destroy themselves," and here we have two editors chronically in ANI, this time relating to their defense of material plagiarized from Metapedia (one of whom defended it vociferously, day after day, for weeks on end) and this is"muddy waters" he said-she said stuff. Ok. Block me NOW. I don't need to "walk away." I need to run. Please.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I have many hits because I participate in many; they aren't all about me, just as this one isn't. Tarc (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• As Director remains dissatisfied about the resolution of issues relating to Jews and Communism, and is evidently not content to leave the AN discussion to provide closure, and as there's a general Misplaced Pages policy issue here surrounding content which is perceived to be hate speech, I would support the referral of the Jews and Communism controversy (in its entirety) to WP:ARBCOMM. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HappyLogolover2011

This user seems to have a very long history of continuous low-quality editing, and he's still very active to this date. His talk page has a very long list of issues dating back all the way to 2011, but his behaviour doesn't look like it's improved much since. He's also active on other projects, and I recently reported him to the admins of Wikimedia Commons for repeated unnecessary and low-quality hue/saturation changes to Wikimedia Commons images, however that's hardly relevant here I suppose.

I did some minor reverts to some of the recent pages (mostly about colours) he's edited, but when I noticed how active he is and how the vast majority of his edits should probably be reverted, I decided this matter requires administrator's attention.

For examples of these low-quality edits you could probably just pick anything from his history, but here are a few:

1. Field of view in video games, where he added information pertaining to analogue filmmaking which as far as I know has practically no relevance to the topic of the article. Also has some original research.
2. Fraggle Rock, more original research.
3. Kermit's Swamp Years, some sort of unrelated original research opinion thing, since then this has been reverted.
4. Clitoromegaly, the file's been since deleted but as far as I can tell based on the edit history where someone reverted it, it was original research and not actually related to clitoromegaly at all. ("WP:Dummy edit: For one, that image is of a penis, not a clitoris. Hormones cannot make a clitoris look that much like a penis, that big, and with the addition of a scrotum.")

I could go on, but really you don't have to look very hard to find more examples of this. One thing I'm not too sure about is if the guy is just a low-quality editor or an outright vandal, but in either case I think he has to be dealt with.

Turdas (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF suggests this is a WP:CIR issue. The editor's last block was for a month. I think they just don't get it. I will point out, though, that this edit by you was incorrect. Crayola most certainly does make markers (including a laser lemon-colored marker), as well as a modeling clay in that color. They make many products including glue, colored pencils, chalk, paint, scissors, and so on. I'm just pointing this out, even though HappyLogolover2011 has a serious problem with original research (including inserting commentary and failing to use references) that doesn't mean they are always wrong. -- Atama頭 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Said user contacted me on my talk page about this report, and in my reply to him I also linked him to the WP:CIR page, along with the no original research page. Perhaps I was a little crude in not talking to him at all before posting here, but looking at his talk page I figured we're beyond the point of talking reason into him.

About that particular edit I made, I posted it with a poor comment but I believe it is an entirely reasonable edit. Those colour pages rely heavily on Crayola's crayon colours, and use Crayola's "crayon chronology" as their reference (that link has since lapsed, but Crayola's website still has the same information -- perhaps I should update the article in that regard). Thus I believe it's quite reasonable to say that markers aren't relevant to that page but crayons are, at least until a good citation related to markers (with eg. accurate hex triplets) is found and added to it. Anyway, this is somewhat beyond the point I guess. Turdas (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had multiple encounters with this user and, while it seems that he is editing in good faith (to me, at least), I have to agree with what Atama says: The dude just doesn't seem to get it, no matter how many times people him that a certain edit he's trying to make just isn't a good idea. TheStickMan 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

HappyLogolover's response at his/her user talk suggests a possible WP:NOTHERE issue. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it's been a little over 24 hours since the last comment here, no resolution seems to have been reached yet, and I'm about to go to bed, I'm posting here to keep this topic from being archived. I also have a question, however: since I was the one to post on this board about the user, I've been trying to be rather tactful when dealing with edits by them until a resolution on this page can be reached. Should I continue waiting for this incident to be resolved, or would it be alright for me to fix some of the potential issues caused by their edits? --Turdas (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating thread to keep it from being archived --Turdas (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this has been pretty well resolved: HappyLogoLover has gotten a pretty clear final warning to cut it out. If he/she keeps it up, people are watching... and another report may issue. There's nothing wrong with letting this get archived at this point. As to waiting for this to be resolved, we aren't talking about a highly-contentious issue here... low-quality edits should just be fixed (without edit warring). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I'm no longer edit warring because I knew those would violate your policies. But those are minor edits to add info about a certain thing that also exists on whatever or something like that.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User scientwatcher is abusviely defending his single POV

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

This user is treating the Chronic_fatigue_syndrome and Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment pages as his personal fiefdom. His easy access to articles give the distinct impression he is employed. His high level or activity seem inconsistent with both an Amateur editor with 'normal employment'. For these reason's I suspect he is a 'paid contributor' or other interested party and deliberately sabotaging the article.

His behaviour is so aggressive that other editors (me included) are being driven off the page - he is also stimulating the same behaviour by others (I suspect due to outright fury and frustration). I personally left this page for several weeks because I could not cope with his demeanour. There is a current example one page, however (due to ill health) I am unable to list all examples, they are too numerous and arduous to link.

Conduct vis-a-vis others

Today was the last straw, he posted the following material on the talk page:

It's your opinion that it's partisan. And if you look at Tekaphor's comments above, you'll see that the other reviews say pretty much the same thing. I would ask if you've been smoking crack, but I suspect you've just been spending too much time on patient forums. I think you need to get out more and read the actual science rather than listening to all the crap that is spouted on phoenixrising (I was having a look through it today, and the pseudoscientific claptrap on there would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad). It makes it very difficult for me to take anything you say seriously when you keep doing this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• He behaved rudely both on the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment page and the Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome page (content now archived). He has also transferred this behaviour to my | own talk page (link to history) - search for 'poop study' or 'crap science'. When I demanded polite conduct on my page (and removed the rude comment) he transferred the rudeness to this one: Chronic_fatigue_syndrome

• When the talk history of the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" and "Chronic Fatigue Synddrome Treatyement" pages are checked he appears to have exhibited unwelcoming or rude conduct with almost every user who disagreed with him thus driving several users driving editors off the page.
• He has made a groundless complaint here of 'rudeness' against one other user when (in the view of several) he is guilty of that behaviour.
• He is abusing WP rules to enforce his view of the content, making vague references to them often when the rules do not appear to have been broken. A recent example present on the talk page being references to WP:OR referring to a conclusion any educated person would form (as permitted). As a new-ish user I found this behaviour overwhelming and had to spend most than 1 month reading the regulations in order to deal with him.
• Other users on this same page manage to be cordial and polite.
• He has use the terms 'Quack' and 'Quackery' to describe doctors who disagree with his (rather inflexible) POV. Relating to Dr Titelbaum in the in the CFS page, and Dr MyHill in the CFS treatment page.

His overall conduct makes dispute resolution or compromise on content seem impossible, there are complaints on his home page covering multiple articles.

Conduct with Content

• He has repeatedly and aggressively reverted the content of other users as many as twice in one day while stopping short of the three revert rule.
• He has been using reversion or complete removal of content he disagrees with as his default modus operandi.
• He has aggressively promoted a single point of view in these pages that is one of at least eight medical disciplines involved in the disease.
• He has removed secondary references supporting statements that do not match his point of view, removed statemetns in their entirety rather than attempt balance (e.g. before & after. Providing a diff is not possible since his constant reversion makes most versions of the page incomparable. Please simply check history and view the number of reversions.
• When others make solid arguments for content he ignores them, makes rude comments or silly references to WP rules and reverts content.
• This has resulted in a page where I could make at least twenty comments regarding NPOV (a small subset there now).
• He is abusing Med-Ref rules to violate neutrality and balance and openly arguing that is correct practice. I can explain why they are especially problematic with this disease on request, however that discussion would be lengthy.
• There is also an issue with how he is insisting Systemic Reviews be used. E.g. deleting content relating to the 'validity' of studies unless the review state verbatim what the study concluded. The variable nature of ME means that very large numbers of measures have been studied with low repetition (more on this below). A systemic review simply could not do more than tabulate its findings for all but the single highly researched method (and the least useful / most harmful). Flexibility and common sense are required here.
• An alternative would be to use studies referenced by the International Consensus Criteria for ME, this has a wide range of expertise in its authorship and giving its study selection adequate peer review. Again he dismissed this compromise (archived talk history of CFS page).

Research Bias and semi-objective sources (required background)

The ideal sources would be systemic reviews of content. This presents particular problems due to complete lack of involvement of the pharmaceutical industry in CFS (inhibiting funding and repetition) and state bias (discussed in the main article and applying equally to USA / Australia). This meant state funding was biased towards psychological interventions as was funding for 'systemic reviews'. Two sources are and (neither would meet MedRef they are doctors websites).
I perosnally have direct contact with patients and direct experience of this subject, however the patients 'voice' can be seen at www.MeAssocation.co.uk (run by an Authority on the field - though not one I personally agree with) or more directly on .

Any those websites would make it clear why Systemic Reviews are so problematic when compared with the extremely limited number of systemic reviews on PubMed. I could locate only four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Responses

Just based on reading this complaint, it seems that a very large amount of it deals with a content dispute or possible unintended bias caused by WP:MEDRS. That really falls far outside of what ANI can or should handle. Behavioral concerns, on the other hand, are well within the scope of things ANI is equipped to handle. This complaint really needs more diffs (but needs a lot less text). It is lengthy to the point of being impossible to address. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I stated in the complaint that he reverts to aggressively it's not possible to produce a before and after diff - you can't produce a diff between two reverted pages, hence I am unclear what you wish me to do. I would ask you to check his demeanour and language in the talk pages, this is the issue I wish the admin complaint to deal with. Please check the history and sheer number of reverts by this single individual. Leopardtail (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking quickly at these rather suggests there is an abundance of useful source material upon which to draw. If they didn't agree with the article's POV, we'd know what should change.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI does not handle content disputes. This appears to be a content dispute. Unless you can find links regarding actionable disruptive editing (gross incivility or personal attacks, persistent edit warring etc), this matter is outside of the scope of the noticeboard. I suggest following our dispute resolution process as it will result in a more effective solution. —Dark 06:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortened complaint with pure focus on behaviour

In response to comment please find shortened version with pure focus on behaviour.

1. This user is using inflammatory language such as suggestions other editors 'smoke crack' and the user to terms such as 'quack' and 'quackery'
2. He is reverting all edits by multiple editors breaking the spirit if not the letter of the three revert rule.
3. The extent of his reversion is so aggressive that one cannot produce diffs (one has to inspect the history log to see this) this alone speaks volumes.
4. It has come to my attention that he is fact (outing reverted) the author of a book on a psychosomatic approach to ME and is editing this article in a manner that two closely reflects that idea in that book - he is thus 'editing for personal again' by promoting the ideas in that book.
5. In response to the comment above regarding sources he is removing sources that don't suit him. Hence whether his material is soured or not his conduct is not acceptable.
6. If a person's behaviour with content is driving away other editors then it goes beyond a content dispute and becomes behavioural. Other editors manage to discuss content without rancour even in heated debate, and still find points of agreement. The problem is specific to this individual.

I wish the focus to be on the abusive and uncooperative pattern and behaviour. I take particular exception to his comment re 'smoking crack' and found it to be abusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't like the abusive language, but I'm puzzled by your accusation that he is treating these articles as a "personal fiefdom" and "abusively reverting". In the CFS article I count only 3 edits by Sciencewatcher out of the last 50. ON the Treatment article I count 7 out of the last 50. Sounds like a content dispute to me, and the apparent hyperbole in the complaint makes me wonder how seriously to take any of this. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

1. One first discludes trivial abusive material that is properly removed and sticks to real solid content. Most of the successful edits on this page belong to SC despite lack of consensus - this is equally true on the main page. Most of them are also far larger often entire sections and more polar in their view.
2. Most of the questionable reversion is also by him. This is the reason for my view. It is through prevention of successful edits by others that abusiveness is occurring. One cannot make the most minor edit to this page without reversion - if he is the majority successful contributor due to others showing more respect, then it matters little how many edits he makes.. He is achieving dominance through proper reversion.
3. In terms of numbers of edits the many by Ceyocky are invisible technical changes to markers, Tecs is merely moving of content, nothing added or changed. The various IP address edits are vandalism subsequently and properly reverted. The two edits by me not reverted are insertions of conflict tags (I tend to forget to sign and have to re-edit to fix thus doubling history doing nothing in order to stay within rules). Checking with diffs (which I have now done) you will find no content but those tags.
4. If you check his book on Amazon that issues becomes far more striking. Leopardtail (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what language is abusive. The term 'smoking crack' is used to mean someone has posted something ridiculous (as leopardtail did). Now struck out. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your professional interest in the content is a conflict of interest in my view hence relevant to the discussion - it made immediate sense of your behaviour. The current supports the content of you book far too closely and for me raised serious questions when I compared content. This was my reason for its inclusion.

I view your own content with a similar respect to the way you view mine, however I do not sue such language and do try to remove it wholesale despite that opinion. I certainly have not expressed my view of your intelligence. The fact you defend this persistently abusive language is why I needed to complain - would rather spend time producing a balanced article. WP is quiet clear that editors should treat each other with respect whatever their views. The user of 'Quack' and 'Quarkery' in relation to content you disagree with is also abusive. Leopardtail (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Leopardtail: "The extent of his reversion is so aggressive that one cannot produce diffs."

Why not?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the boxes were not selctable to choose specific versions needed. I have since worked out how to do it - previously I was not seeing two full columns of radio buttons to choose the specific versions needed. I agree with the comment below however the general mood seems to be that this is a content dispute hence I would rather see whether we can manage to resolve this on the page. Thank you all for your time. --Leopardtail (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no indication that this is anything other than a content dispute. Moreover, I see no problems with the content that sciencewatcher has added to these pages. This thread probably should be closed. I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

User:68.161.242.243 removing "the Bronx" from Bronx neighborhood articles, also HelperBot glitch

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

For the past 11 months, this IP has essentially done nothing except remove "the Bronx" from the ledes of Bronx neighborhood articles. In March I gave the IP a final warning, and they made five edits of the exact same type today. I reported this at AIV, but an apparent HelperBot glitch is removing the report, saying that the IP has been blocked, when no block has actually been issued. Since the IP appears to be fairly static, I believe a substantial block is justified here. Can someone please take a look and issue a (real) block? Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and someone should look into that HelperBot glitch. The two edits are here and here. BMK (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC

Hello? ... lo ... lo ... lo ... Is anyone home? ... om ... om ... om BMK (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oversight, neglected to notify the IP last night. I've done so now. BMK (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An AIV report on this IP would probably be declined as stale now since there haven't been any edits since the 16th. That Helperbot glitch needs to be looked into though; it seems to be basing its removals for the 68' IP on garbage data; though the users credited with the blocks had issued blocks around the same time, in the case of the second one the block length and options seem to have been pulled out of thin air. I wonder if this is happening more often, just that nobody notices. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't stale when I reported it to AIV shortly after it happened, only to be thwarted from having an admin examine it by the HB glitch. BMK (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, notified Wimt (talk · contribs) since it's a bot he maintained that malfunctioned here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a month. The IP is clearly editing disruptively, and has been doing so non-stop for almost a year now. Just because the IP hasn't edited in 4 days doesn't mean they've stopped, not when they've been doing this for so long. Granted, they may not even try to edit again until after a month has passed, but at least there is a block log in place. -- Atama頭 18:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. BMK (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Insulting editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AAlstom&diff=608784610&oldid=607649292 " Suggest you visit your medic to inquire about Alzheimer's."

I'm not dealing with this. I do not come here and work for nothing to be treated like this by random people.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since that comment. When it occurred, a warning against WP:NPA would be appropriate, and further such comments met with blocking the panda ₯’ 13:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This merits a NPA warning, and with all due respect, perhaps a recommendation to chill out to the complaining party. Sometimes IPs come across with some things that would be intolerably rude if said in real life. Such is anonymity. If you stay active on Misplaced Pages I guarantee you'll have worse things said to you. Again, I say this only with the best intentions; you shouldn't feel that you were wrong in complaining about this editor's statement, but your reaction seems a bit severe all things considered. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 13:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless the editor has a history of personal attacks, it's impossible to prevent rude comments before they occur. They need to be reported after they occur which you've done, Prof.Haddock. Mendaliv is right, interaction online necessitates developing a thick skin and also the ability to not take abrasive comments by anonymous editors personally. Editors need to be held accountable but it's the internet, rudeness happens. Liz 13:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all well and good stating that the comment was made 2 days ago, and in some way is therefore stale, but if you check Prof.Haddock's edit history you'll see that there was an editing gap between 11/05 and 17/05 - so he has apparently reported it as soon as he saw it, possibly over-enthusiastically, but promptly nevertheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's all very well for Haddock to complain about an insult (last I checked, Alzheimer's was a medical condition) but where is the notice to him that he erred? If you read his edit, he removed a paragraph and then either lied about, made specious claims about, or conveniently forgot about, his reasons. I stand by my statement as a way to gently prod him short of saying Haddock fabricated his rationale for his censorship. It's all there in black and white on the edit summary. Rather than pile on with misplaced sympathy, read the record. 69.60.247.229 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"Suggest you visit your medic to inquire about Alzheimer's" is not a "gentle prod", it's an aggressive insult. Comment on the article text, not the editor. You were playing the man, not the ball (IMO). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I did warn the IP much earlier today ... and any such future bullshit will indeed lead to a block. That's a pretty vile personal attack suggesting that some form of mental illness is present the panda ₯’ 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Alzheimer's is a disease, not a mental illness.--Auric talk 12:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but it's a disease that affects the mind by causing generalized neuronal deterioration, which seems to have been 69.60.247.229's implication. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Nerd in Texas

Could someone please take a look at Nerd in Texas (talk · contribs)? I happened to notice yesterday that he seemed to be creating some sort of hoax or joke article in his user space, so I dropped him a talk-page note asking what his purpose was. Rather than replying, he moved the sandbox to mainspace as the (now speedied) article Gravioli. He's made some good edits, but he's also made some bad ones, as well as some inexplicable ones, and has also created a few made-up types of pages. Some of his edits, along with this sandbox of his, show that he appears to have a perhaps less-than-healthy interest in the topic of hoaxing and vandalism on WP. I suspect that he's somebody's sock, since he created the account earlier this month and quickly started throwing around templates and abbreviations like one familiar with the place, and since and his speedied article Gigacity had also been created and speedied a couple of weeks before he showed up; but I don't know who created it that time, so I can't really file an SPI. Off to notify him of this thread now. Deor (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The original page Gigacity was created on 22 April by This is not my last name (talk · contribs) and wasn't the same. The content in that version was "A hypothetical city with a metro area population of at least 10 billion," as compared with Nerd in Texas' "A gigacity is a city even larger in scale than a megacity." However, it is striking that Nerd in Texas started editing on 30 April, the day after This is not my last name was indefinitely blocked, specifically for creating hoaxes. That's so suggestive that it seems unnecessary to put you to the trouble of filing an SPI, Deor. I've indeffed Nerd in Texas per WP:DUCK. Thank you very much for catching this. Why aren't you an admin? Bishonen | talk 16:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC).

I have been wondering the same thing--I think I wondered this a few years ago already. "Deor" is a really cool name as well. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In case one account or the other throws up an unblock the request, the socking is  Confirmed.--Jezebel'sPonyo 15:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim

He/she has been bombarding my pages with untrue violations and flagging them for unnotability inspire of have two dozen plus credible media reports. Could you please intervene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vaibhav_Maloo_(2nd_nomination)

Why is he after this particular page only? for 2 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptonite1234 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "my pages": which pages are those? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is just a complaint that SmallJim has sent an article written by Kryptonite (under a different account) to AfD. SmallJim had previously AfD'd an article on the same subject, which closed as delete. An interesting occurrence: three brand new accounts showed up to !vote keep in this AfD in something like a 10 minute period. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What Mendaliv said; there is no issue here. I've opened an SPI on the latter point at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kryptonite1234. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And he didn't even notify me of this report despite the notice to do so being rather hard to ignore. All I got from him around that time was an admonition. I trust no-one else will object if I don't treat this as a serious complaint.  —SMALLJIM  09:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Kryptonite has admitted to canvassing/meatpuppetry at the SPI: diff. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD closed as delete, title salted. Still no action on the SPI. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Long Time behavioral Problem with a Tendentious Editor

• Disneywizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• It's a Small World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has for three years now continued to feel that every time that the ride/song "Its a Small world" is mentioned, it must be all lowercase letters because that is the way that Disney stylizes it. There was a discussion three years ago and he had no support for the changes based on MOS:TM, yet he has continued and persisted without end. Last week, he changed it again. I reverted but he continues to want to edit war without end, while adding personal attacks toward me in his edit summaries, , , and finally telling me to get psychiatric help.

I have linked MOS:TM to this user several times and he simply does not agree with it. MOS:TM says When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner. The sources all use upper case: OC Register , and the Deseret News , and then the LA Times , as well as Reuters . This just looks like a case of I don't like it.--JOJ 00:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I propose an indefinite topic-ban for User:Disneywizard for "It's a Small World" throughout the project, to be enforced by escalating blocks the panda ₯’ 00:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. JOJ 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Based on the circumstances, I also agree. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can anyone else please chime in here. I feel helpless to do anything short of edit warring with this guy who seems to have nothing to lose. ANI was once a place to come and get some perspective on certain incidents. A few years ago an editor post here and everyone would have an opinion. Seems that lately, ANI isn't as helpful of a board as it once was. I realize that we are all busy in real life and that not everything needs immediate attention, but I'm hoping to get this settled in the next few days at least. User:DangerousPanda, an admin, suggested a topic ban for User:Disneywizard. I'm not sure if DangerousPanda was serious about that or not, but would anyone else be in favor of a topic ban? Or can there be an enforceable topic ban with just the two of us discussing it? I'm really hoping to get some feedback on this because this guy will not stop at all.--JOJ 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've warned User:Disneywizard and I'll try to keep an eye on him. Feel free to notify me directly if he continues to engage in personal attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what to do about the article though. I don't want to edit war with him, but at the same time, I don't want him to think he gets his way and have the article not follow some simple guidelines just because he is willing to edit war.--JOJ 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a topic ban is necessary, given this user's userpage, it should probably be for trademark stylization and capitalization variants. I'm not convinced one is necessary though; I feel like a year or two ago this sort of ridiculousness would have been considered disruptive enough to merit a block. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit, by the way, is a fairly blatant WP:POINT violation: substituting "it's a small world"(stylized as It's a small world by Misplaced Pages) for It's a Small World (stylized as "it's a small world" by The Walt Disney Company) is hard to characterize as anything but disruptive. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And DW just reverted my edit to (primarily) remove his caps changes. Warned for edit warring. It's only his first revert in the last 24 hours, but just from skimming the last 500 edits, I see there are easily a dozen (maybe two dozen) reverts from DW pushing the caps variant since August 2011 (and Jojhutton reverting back many if not most of those times, but by no means all). DW seems to be insisting that there is no consensus to apply MOS:TM to the names of theme park rides, based on a fairly strict reading of MOS:TM and arguing that these names are not trademarks(?). This seems to me to fall well within the definition of tendentious editing, and possibly even a candidate for WP:LAME. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 00:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban from 'Its a small world'. It has been explained to him why he is wrong, he clearly understands the concept as evidenced by his pointy edits listed above, he has actively chosen to disregard the advice. At this point the quickest, easiest and most hassle-free solution is a strict topic ban with escalating blocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Promoting Ugandan law firms

• Ray Clyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.217.235.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The named account and his IPs (I gave only one example, but it is quite a range of Ugandan IPs) are on a tear creating Ugandan law firm articles. All of them follow a similar format. Some of them get tagged and speedy deleted, but others still remain, no doubt because of the pace of their creation. I don't feel comfortable taking action unilaterally, which is why I brought it here. (I'm not notifying the IP - it's fairly clear the IPs are either Clyde or a cohort.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Block them indefinitely, and see if they show any interest in returning properly, with an encyclopedic goal. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are articles about Ugandan organisations or Ugandan individuals, like for example Rose Namayanja who is a member of the Ugandan Cabinet, or Henry Musasizi who is (apparently) an MP in that country, not an encyclopedic goal? I've not seen the deleted articles for obvious reasons, but these stand out even at a first glance.

I've never seen a suggestion for an indefinite block for someone creating a lot of articles about, say, English bishops or members of the FTSE 250.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of a promotional purpose behind an account creating articles for all the organisations in a particular field. Some law firm has paid him to create articles about their competitors? Or what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but a bar association or national chamber of commerce would absolutely benefit from that sort of listing. Again, not saying that's what's happening, but it's entirely plausible. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 06:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but the account is also creating articles about politicians who are not (and have never been) lawyers... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I ran into a similar account who was very active creating many pages and categories of individuals of their country, mostly the people were in the entertainment and business fields. But it seemed to be more about raising the profile of the country on Misplaced Pages out of national pride rather than paid editing or some WP:COI. I'm sure this happens all of the time on WP but on a smaller scale. As long as the articles stand the tests of notability and WP:RS, I don't see a big problem. If there are dozens of poorly written articles, than action should be taken. Liz 12:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just as with vandals, an account may be disruptive a certain percentage of the time and not disruptive some of the time. Here, many of the articles are being speedily deleted, which means that they don't even satisfy the criteria, let alone notability guidelines, at least in the view of the deleting administrator. There's also a certain amount of dishonesty here in the way the articles are drafted, referenced, and laid out to make them look more like "real articles" than they really are. There are also blatant misrepresentations. Take, for example List of law firms in Uganda. Before I edited the article, it looked like this. it had a section called Ugandan law firms that consisted entirely of redlinked articles, probably because all of them were speedy deleted. That in and of itself might have been excusable but it also had a list of "International law firms in Uganda" with 19 listed. I went through each firm's article and website (tedious) and, except for three firms, the others did not have offices in Uganda. I even left in DLA Piper, although it didn't really have an office in Uganda, it had a relationship with another firm with an office in Uganda. Some of the listed firms were African firms that were not international, although I didn't remove any on that basis. I then tagged it as an A7 with an explanation of what I'd done on the talk page. DGG declined it, not the first time he and I disagree on this sort of thing (his prerogative, of course). Anyway, if the consensus is to leave the editor alone, I'll stop patrolling him, his IPs, and his crappy articles. I'm persuaded that this is a disruptive editor, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• What Bbb says. I looked at the user's other articles, and don't see notability problems there--but those law firms, they were nothing more than directory entries. That's disruptive, pure and simple. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So it strikes me that cultivating this editor might be a good task for WP:CSB, given an interest in creating articles on Ugandan topics is something we can only use more of. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems like the editor is trying to work with Misplaced Pages, and is making a good effort, but is desperately trying to get the pages to stay and be "notable" to someone who's likely unfamiliar with the country. Many of them are harsher reactions which create an even more critical response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, that's fine, Mendaliv--but what prompted my response here (and no doubt Bbb's report) is the IP editing. So that needs to be mentioned by any nurturer as well. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Be fair, as well: A LOT of new articles get deleted regardless of their merit as a subject, because administrators tend to judge very quickly as the creation rate is high. I remember back on Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly, Episode 34, where we were group-making an article, and had it deleted half-way through, despite a couple basic sources and a note saying we were about to work on it as a collaborative edit right then. Adam Cuerden 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to create an article. It's hard to create an article that doesn't get deleted within a week of its creation. But along with a few valid articles that are unfortunately deleted, I'm sure a lot of junk gets cleared out through the process. Liz 15:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Filling in obvious gaps in our coverage of country should be encouraged. It's a perfectly reasonable activity for anyone interested in that aspect of the country's life (for example in this case, a law student). There are two inevitable pitfalls we have to help people around : the likelihood the the writing will not conform to our standards, and the tendency to include people or things whose notability is not obvious. It would seem self-apparently wise to start with one or two articles on the most notable and get feedback, but this strategy seems to be rather uncommon. It's our job as admins not just to spot the deficient articles, but to offer the necessary advice, which is best done my personalized messages, not templates. None of us do it all the time: I try to do it, but often the best I can manage is try to spot [patterns, but when it is usually too late. We have enough admins, but we need more to participate in the work of screening new articles--and to do it properly when they're doing it. A reviewer of NPP or AfD who confines themselves to dropping templates is easy to mistake for a robot.

Given the pressure of the umber of articles and drafts to review, we all make mistakes. But it's not quite as bad as Liz seems to think. I know my error rate is under 5% for articles, and under 10% for the often much more ambiguous afcs. At present, at least 3/4 of the articles submitted in NPP stay in WP, though perhaps 10% of them shouldn't. At AfC the results are much more disappointing. Only about 10% of the articles are either accepted, or ever get improved and then accepted. But this is the fault of first , the reviewers who decline articles that would pass afd, and second, our inability to actually follow through are persuade people to make the improvements--probably about 1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(corrected a template above) Your comments are valuable, but I'd like to see some evidence of your stats, e.g., "1/3 or 1/2 of the articles are potentially acceptable" (by whose standards?). I also think that you fail to take into account those users whose motives are not to improve the encyclopedia but to promote, and the distinct possibility that that is the case with this user (who has not edited since this topic was opened) and his use of IP addresses as if they are other users. I don't say any of this to push for sanctions at this point. If someone is willing to mentor the user, I'm all for giving them a chance to improve their skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Heavily implied legal threats

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:K6ka&oldid=609007323#Angus_Taylor.27s_Wikipedia_page
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Angus_Taylor_(politician)&action=history

The user has been blanking content, incessantly calling it 'defamatory'. The user has also left a message on one of the user's talk page. In the most recent edit, has removed more content by what appears to be a sockpuppet, as well indicating that action will be taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Angus_Taylor_%28politician%29&diff=609039488&oldid=609038571

I do believe that the editor does simply not know that legal threats are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and may need some counseling with the acknowledgement that if they proceed, they will be blocked. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm notifying Louiseclegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jridley2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not doing that. Got caught up with some other real life stuff, was gonna do it only to see your reply. Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been a long-running content dispute in regard to the page. Having gone over the content, I can see issues, but I'm not sure what the exact points of contention are. However, I note that there has been no discussion at all on the talk page. As the issues are unclear, and this is a BLP, I've reverted it way back to the pre-dispute state and fully protected the article for 30 days. That, however, does not address the current possible legal threat. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that if the user name is accurate, that user is the wife of Angus Taylor, as a result I left a COI template on their talk page to let them know the sensitivity of editing on a subject you're involved with. IT mainly comes down to the fact that they don't seem to realise that there are sources for these positions (not sure if they're reliable), what personal information she gleans from him personally is not referencible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit seems to confirm this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC

Well, reading Louiseclegg's post to K6ka's talk page, she sounds extremely frustrated with the state of the BLP article and feels that the subject is being misrepresented by his rivals. She may have a conflict-of-interest, but it's also important for the article to have a NPOV. I recommend directing her OTRS where there are volunteers who routinely deal with these kinds of concerns. I'll post a note on her talk page. Liz 13:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

While I don't see any harm in directing the editor to OTRS, I wonder if it may be better to direct them at BLP/N or at least raise the article there (I've now done the later). I don't have that much experience with OTRS but I know they frequently raise BLP concerns at BLP/N anyway and of course they can't reveal what was said in the email which can make dealing with issues complicated. While not everyone at BLP/N is good at dealing with those with a strong COI like subjects and those closely related to them, there are definitely many with the necessary sensitivity and tact. So when the editor is willing to make their concerns public and use the other public wikipedia processes, it may not always be necessary to use OTRS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good advice, Nil. I've seen some users with an admitted COI treated not so nicely on noticeboards but it wouldn't have hurt to direct the editor to WP:BLP/N as an alternative forum. Liz 15:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Anlu Rodsou (composer)

While stub-sorting I came across this, created by @Yarjane:: it had a ref, to a Thai-language law thesis whose English summaries gave no indication that it would contain any ref to this composer, and I see that there have been multiple deleted entries at Anlu Rodsou (A7, G3), Anlu Rodisou (A1), Anlu Redsou, Anlu Rudsou, Anlu Radsou. Perhaps someone could have a look and see whether it's the same editor all the time, and offer them some advice? There's also a pretty incomprehensible talk page entry from a page curator (@Polyglot:), at User talk:Yarjane. PamD 08:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Via Google cache, Anlu Rodsou in this incarnation said "Anlu Rodsou is a secret militar base next do Manaus, Brazil." Then there's Anlu Rodsou (singer) cached where it said: "Anlu Rodsou was british rock band very important for the sadwave scenery on london after the punk." Then Anlu Redsou cache "Anlu Redsou was a pakistani songwriter and frontman from the Valhala Rock Band." (Ditto Anlu Rodisou cached and Anlu Rudsou cached) The references in all these appear spurious and with no relation to the subject. A hoaxer at work? Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly a somewhat bizarre attempt to raise the internet profile of this person. See also, . Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the logs, many of those other articles were created by Kimberluv (talk · contribs). Based on the number of throwaway accounts involved with the repeated creation of Anlu Rodsou, I would guess this is a sock farm. --Kinu /_c 09:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Since a quick search indicates that this person is clearly not any of the things mentioned in any of the incarnations of the article, I've G3ed the current article and blocked Yarjane indefinitely as part of this likely hoax farm. --Kinu /_c 09:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: here's the previous thread on this. --Kinu /_c 09:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the incomprehensible comment on the talk page. I'm rather new at reviewing pages with page curation and I only got involved due to the enormous backlog (and because it's quite a cool tool, I wonder when it will become available in other WP language versions). I looked around with Google, found the Finnish version of the page and how it got deleted on all other language versions. I think a global block for this account is in order. Next time I'll see something like this happening, I'll probably press the button to nominate it for deletion. Maybe I was trying to be too nice and constructive... It's a bit tricky to find the right balance. --Polyglot (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sladewakenz, Spadious, Madcum, Kimberluv, and Yarjane are all  Confirmed and blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrschimpf

Can you please block or warn this editor? This edit here is disruptive in attempt to drive away productive contributors and also harassment as well. --2602:306:CE9A:860:58B9:4B3C:ED4B:7DEC (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OP has had issues with using a mass of IPV6 addresses to rapidly remove information from Reno television station articles earlier this month without any kind of discussion and later battleground editing, along with a spurious WP:AIV report against me and another user who were removing their edits after I asked for two weeks of semi-protection on the articles. Nyttend (talk · contribs) with the assistance of Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) placed a rangeblock on the pool of IPV6 addresses they were using and that block seemed to just lift as they went right back to removing the content with just a spare drop of WP:SPECULATION. My only action this round has been a talk notice that they need to discuss their edits before going forward and not to edit war, but then a redacted excuse that they're not fast-switching the IP's on purpose, which hardly seems to be the case. I extended that they could edit if they explained why and stuck to one IP or username, but taking me to ANI based on reverting their unexplained edits is a little extreme. Also note that I wasn't notified on my own talk of this report by the OP as required. Nate • (chatter) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously blocked Special:Block/2602:306:CE9A:860::/64. Is a reblock appropriate for the whole range? Anyone who repeats disruptive behavior immediately after a block's expiration hasn't gotten the point, especially when it's clearly not a new person. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Without comment on whether the person is actually being disruptive (I do see edit warring though), yes this would again be the range to block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP chain is continuing to change information at Reed Cowan, calling an editor trying to properly edit the article disgraceful and linking to WP:GAME. In that case it looks like someone also editing their own BLP and has been an edit war going on for months between them, good editors just trying to edit properly and the BLP subject which may need a long period of semi'ing to clean up. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And now it looks like the 'disgraceful' editor was blocked for 24h for personal attacks against another editor regarding another article, proving the Reed Cowan article really needs someone to look through it to neutralize it; as I've never heard of him it isn't going to be me though. Nate • (chatter) 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please block...

Rock1994 (talk · contribs). He's a disruptive sock of the blocked editor Sudhir7777 and is reverting in the same POV edits into Economy of Pakistan that Sudhir7777 made. I've put up the user at Sudhir's sockpuppet investigations page but that investigation might take forever. Until then, this user seems to be bent upon reinstating their POV into the article and I am not in the mood for edit warring. Please read the lead of Economy of Pakistan, he's literally destroying the article. Mar4d (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock for a week and extended the block on the master to two weeks. I've also semi-protected the target article for the duration of the block to disuade further socking as Sudhir777 has multiple ranges at their disppsal, limiting the usefulness of autoblocks.--Jezebel'sPonyo 14:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites

• Western Shugden Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peaceful5 is the most hyperspecific Shugden SPA so far. Over the years he kept inserting self-published Shugden blogs and websites at the Western Shugden Society page. Now, he just did a massive replacement of academic material with the same self-published Shugden blogs and websites that both Kt66 and myself previously cleaned up. Peaceful5's goal is to make the page an advertisement for the Western Shugden Society. And Peaceful5 is well aware of Misplaced Pages's policy of using self-published material. So he cannot plead ignorance. This is a willful and deliberate act. By the nature of his edits, he has a clear affiliation with the Western Shugden Society / International Shugden Community. Heicth (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do notice that in your revert here, as well as removing what appear to be sources related to the Subject, you also removed a lot of text that is sourced to reliable sources (i.e. books published by reputable publishers, the BBC, etc, as well as an Infobox. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, you need to be careful to not blindly revert changes but to review them properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing Nigel did while I was skimming through one of the editor's big contributions to the article. May I add (and I want to say this is something I learned from DGG, maybe), that the best way to stave off some types of disruption is to improve an article, and right now the article is not in a very good state. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of academic experts, and Peaceful5's insertion of the following Shugden blogs and websites is not acceptable:

• dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com
• internationalshugdencommunity.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org
• westernshugdensociety.org
• shugdensociety.info
• dorjeshugden.com
• Also see **here please**Heicth (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing from a user with a history of it

YahwehSaves (talk · contribs) has a history of problematic edits quite some time now. The user has an extensive block log which I don't believe he has learned from. His recent edits have been problematic in many ways and has been noticed by many (please see this thread: ). At the Harry Kizirian GA article, the user has been making edits that are only in accordance to his personal observations and is not backed by any source (few diffs: ). He continues to remove sourced content in other articles with often times misleading and discreet edit-summaries to cover what he is doing (). Yet, on the other hand, he has added unsourced content numerous times with discreet edit-summaries () He has yet resorted to the talk page for his edits and has yet to provide a source to back his claims even when told to do so many times (. He is often willing to edit-war to get his way (). I'm not too familiar with his history since I have encountered this user just recently. Perhaps EricSerge (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), Chris troutman (talk · contribs), Intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) can provide a better and more comprehensive review of it. You can see a general summary of it here. It's also good to take a look at this thread here. The concerns brought forth in this thread ultimately ended in a block for the user. It also appears that the user is engaging in the very same disruptive editing that got him into these blocks in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

168-hour block imposed. Do something problematic, get blocked, and return to make productive edits: no problem. Do something problematic, get blocked, and return to do the same thing: you need a stronger reminder. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Desk Ref

The user appears to be in intermittently-active troll who's trying to get me into trouble one way or another, as a review of Desk Ref (talk · contribs) indicates. He's managed to trick at least one editor into falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. Instead, I suspect that the user in question has many different guises. But in any case, User:Desk Ref needs to be put on ice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, the place to go is SPI, as none of the recent edits are exactly block-worthy. I agree with BB that this account is likely not disclosing their other accounts legitimately. Doc talk 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Eep ;) Doc talk 08:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

An SPI. Excellent. Maybe we can finally pin down who Desk Ref actually is. With recent activity, a checkuser may be able to determine that. Obviously his two-year-old activity is staler than the 13th donut in a baker's dozen. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bugs. You haven't "made it" until you get accused of being a sockpuppet and/or master. I had my initiation years ago. When it happened to me I welcomed CheckUser. By the way, Tomahawker fed edited as recently as a month ago, I think the cut-off for CU data is around 3 months so it shouldn't be stale. -- Atama頭 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I feel blessed. NOT! I found a behavioral link between one of the IP's and both the user Desk Ref and that Tomahawk fed... which, by the way, the latter is another play on "Axman 8" from like five years ago. It could be that same impostor from 2009, or it could be an impostor of an impostor. But I'm hoping the SPI will result in that guy finally being sent to the bit-bucket. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was a waste of time. Regardless, the user Desk Ref is a harassment-only user who should be indef'd. Can't someone at least do that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of Desk Ref shows that they most certainly aren't a "harassment-only user". I'm pretty sure this is an alternate account of someone, their manner of speaking is very familiar like that of an established editor, but without knowing who that is (or suspecting) we can't take any action. The only problematic edits from this user (to me) are this edit (and only because someone shouldn't determine consensus by "counting") and this edit (which is flat-out harassment, I'll admit). This edit is also not stellar (and I expect this is one that really bothers you Bugs, for obvious reasons) but I wouldn't give a person more than a warning for a comment like that. Other than that, though, this editor's behavior hasn't been all that terrible. Besides those dodgy comments I've already mentioned, there is a combination of reasonable discussion page/noticeboard comments and some article work. If this editor didn't behave like a sock I don't think I'd pay them much attention at all.

I'm not going to block someone for probably being a sock of some unknown person. I really doubt any other admin would either. -- Atama頭 20:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin Atama is correct that the edits (linked above) that I made are problematic. I don't edit here much, but it looks like I got myself tangled up this year in AN3, AN/I, AIV, and SPI. So I must start off by apologizing to Baseball Bugs for any actions that I have done to have him report on me in all of those venues. I will strive to make any future edits productive improvements to the encyclopedia that will not cause anyone grief. If consensus allows me to continue editing, I will do so for the remainder of this season. After that I won't be back most likely until Spring 2016. Thank you for your time on this matter. Desk Ref (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing image uploads by User:Rodolph

What started out as an attempt to potentially rescue a few images has seemingly developed into an informal deletion review, and whilst I am trying to apply common sense, I am starting to feel a little out of my depth

The relevant discussions on the uploader's talk page:

• User talk:Rodolph#Please could these deletions be reviewed?
• User_talk:Rodolph#Some_answers
• User_talk:Rodolph#In_response_to_new_informations

On my talk page :

User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#Requests_at_WP:REFUND

in addition to some additonal queries made on a per image basis.

The feedback and views of a wider group of administrators and contributors would be appreciated.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note on Rodolph's talk page which will hopefully start a fuller discussion. Nthep (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Abusive reverting, from same user, again, like last time

This user was told here on this page not to touch my update on the Nascar page. It's standard on the Nascar page, for the last 3 months, to list when the next race is going to be. -- But, a particular user came along earlier this month and deciding to keep un-doing the listing of the next race. There had never been a problem with it before this user started interfering. And as I said, they were already warned on here once; obviously they haven't learned anything.

Here's what it's SUPPOSED to look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609178012&oldid=609169564 --- And here is how they keep blanking it out for no reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series&diff=609178620&oldid=609178012

Here is the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:United_States_Man

As I said, it's standard to list the next race, always has been. This needs to stop. My time is important to me and I shouldn't have to keep dealing with this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

US Man has now been notified. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was seconds away from notifying them. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)John seems to be referring to an ANI thread from earlier this month. There does not appear to have been any attempt to discuss this issue at the talk page or at either party's user talk. I suggest that based on this alone, the issue is not ripe for administrative intervention. You guys need to try talking this out, and engaging in other forms of dispute resolution. And contrary to John's claim, I don't see that US Man was "warned" as a result of the prior thread; instead, the same recommendation seems to have been made to try discussing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it "three months" or "always has been"? And the fact that "there's never been a problem with it before" is irrelevant - obviously there is now, so you need to discuss the issue with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Also this edit summary is inappropriate - there was no "warning", you need to discuss instead of declaring "stop", and a dose of good faith instead of the bad you've been assuming would go a long way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that user was warned. Perhaps they weren't specifically warned, I'm not sure. In any case, I thought the situation was done, but then user started the same stuff again. It's standard to list when the next Nascar race is, it always has been. And for someone to keep erasing it for really no reason is not good. The date of the next race will stay, as it always has before. Me trying to talk to them about it before has proved no good - I'm not trying again. If it had done any good, I wouldn't have ended up coming back here in the first place.

Also, the reason I said "stop" is because my attempts in the past to be nice about it with them, fell of deaf ears. I thought "stop" might be a little more effective. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: First, "It's standard to list when the next Nascar race is, it always has been." is completely wrong. Look throughout 2013 in the history. That was definintely not standard. Second, "The date of the next race will stay, as it always has before." is endorsing your version, implying that your think your version should always be the way and that no one should change it, hinting at WP:OWN. Third, you say it is not good to erase it, but what good does it do to have an empty heading there? That makes no sense. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of things "always have been", it's not necessarily right that they have. And above you said "for the last 3 months" - that's not "always has been". Also your declaring "The date of the next race will stay" is inappropriate here; you don't get to declare unilaterally "this is how it shall be". You must discuss it. If directly discussing or discussion on the talk page didn't work, then the next step is WP:DRN, not WP:ANI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: (edit conflict)All I see here is a poor attempt by a hot-head (please excuse my minor incivility and name-calling) at getting his way. What he says is standard proceedure was never standard until he showed up trying to change everything. What it is SUPPOSED to look like is to have nothing there until after the race and someone writes a report. That is a summary section, not a schedule. No sense in putting a heading if there is no summary. This is becoming quite laughable at this point. I since a little WP:OWN in the extreme ways he defends this. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it really doesn't change that no admin action is really needed here other than, perhaps, to warn the both of you not to edit war. If you guys want to establish a standard for NASCAR articles pointing in either direction, you should probably take it to WP:NASCAR. Or at least discuss it at the talk page. Or do any of what's listed at WP:DRN. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Johnsmith2116: This is a collaborative project. If you can't collaborate, don't participate.--v/r - TP 03:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• People do not get to inflict their self-declared rules on the project. We only have room for one GodKing, and his name is Jimbo all hail Jimbo the panda ₯’ 10:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:DangerousPanda, have you informed Jimbo that you have mentioned him here, as you are required to do by the edit notice and message at the top of the page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Careful, mon ami, there's enough people that seem to think that's what the edit notice says - no need to jokingly say that line anymore :-) the panda ₯’ 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnsmith2116, it also appears that United States Man contacted you about this issue back in April on your user talk page but rather than respond, you deleted his messages. That was an ideal opportunity to discuss this situation rather than have it escalate to WP:AN/I. Even better, why don't you both take this issue to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject NASCAR where more editors who are interested in NASCAR can weigh in with their views. Liz 15:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not perfectly correct - back then, we had already had a few exchanges in the editing box, and when that person put messages on my talk page, I returned by putting a couple on his page, I didn't reply on my own page, I went on his where I thought they might be more likely to see it. But thanks for your concern. .. From now, as far as I'm concerned, this issue is done. It's such a petty thing. If is bothers someone so much that the date of the next race is there (something that I had SEEN SOMEONE ELSE DO FIRST BEFORE I MYSELF STARTED FOLLOWIG SUIT), then I won't put it there. It's not worth the hassle. I have a good enough life worth living that I don't need to engage is this garbage. That user isn't the only user like them that I've encountered - they are known as electronic bullies, and when someone backs down to them they are a "wimp", but if someone stands up to them, they are a "hot-head". So, basically, either I'm a wimp. or a hothead. ... But for anyone interested, keep in mind what I said; when I first went to that nascar page, the date of the next race was already there, which means SOMEONE ELSE has already been doing it before I myself ever began doing it also. So, when the day comes (and it will) that someone else puts the date of the next race there, and this particular user wants to revert them the same as they did me, all this junk will happen all over again - but it won't be me next time, it'll be someone else. As for me, I'm done with it. If it gives them some pleasure or sense of self esteem to feel like Mr. Big Shot by getting the last word or the last whatever, then let them have it - it's obviously a lot more important to them than to me. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Johnsmith, everything you just said shows that you're the bully - not anyone else - but it's ok, we still want ya to stick around. Seriously, just because someone else screwed up a couple of times by adding the date, doesn't mean it's the right way to do it - so when someone shows you it's the wrong way, it's usually good practice to re-evaluate. That's how Misplaced Pages works. This certainly could have avoided a whackload of drama where you're pissed off, other people are pissed off, all because of an easily-correctable minor error that was correctable by simple stopping the panda ₯’ 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So here what you're saying -- that if someone stands up to a bully, then that makes THAT person the bully. So basically, if the person backs down, they are a wimp, but if they give the bully the business back, then they are the bully themselves too. I don't understand your logic, but to each their own I suppose. ... But as I said earlier, I'm done with it, I'm done putting the date of the next race as it had always been put before I even got there -- let someone else put it there and then THEY can deal with all this junk when they too get reverted for no good reason. I have things that need tended to in real life that are much more important than trying to get through to a user on here whose main mission in life is to see to it that the date of the next race isn't available for people to see. If they want to take the date off, then they can take it off -- and when someone ELSE puts it back on and then gets reverted by the user in question, then THAT person can deal with him -- I'm done with it. My original reason for coming to Misplaced Pages 7 years ago was to get the scores of games at a site that didn't have a lot of flashing banners that slow my computer down (as with Yahoo Sports). I didn't know that it would turn into all this. I myself don't go around reverting people's good edits for no reason.

This is finished as far as I'm concerned. It's not needed to keep responding to me here, as I'm not likely to come back and read anything here, it wouldn't do a service to keep talking about this anymore. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, John, as an outsider, all this looks like is someone made a bold edit, someone got reverted... the next step is to discuss. Reverting isn't bullying, and edit warring, while improper, is equally improper for all involved. Reverts can be frustrating, especially when you believe—as you clearly do—that your version is representative of consensus. But that something is the status quo, or even has had a clear consensus articulated in the past, does not mean a revert is improper, nor does it mean it's vandalism or bullying. In short, while I understand you're frustrated and annoyed—perhaps more so because your last ANI thread led you to believe you were in the right—you need to calm down. Nobody's calling anybody a wimp or a bully here, and honestly, I don't even know if US Man is correct in his revert (nor does it matter for the purposes of this board). What matters is that you all need to discuss it and come to a consensus. That's just how things work here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, John, we're saying that United States Man was never the bully and it has been you this whole time. And your instance that USM is the bully really just shows us how much you're willing to push others around and how little criticism you're willing to take. I'm of a different opinion than Panda, I want you gone. We don't need you pushing around other editors. This is a collaborative project, people are meant to work together. You've shown that you cannot work with other people, you only want to get your way. That's bullying. Had you tried to talk to United States Man, like he tried to talk to you, I'd be more willing to work with you. That hasn't happened. You're the bully.--v/r - TP 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

More Personal Attacks from User:86.174.240.211

On the Filipinos, the first problem is that this guy makes edits WITHOUT any edit summaries. His contributions to the article fit his own pleasure, and he and I went into edit war. Both of us got banned for 24 hours because of the 3-vert rule, okay. Then later when the block expired, I made a changed a couple of images, with edit summaries and explanations. However, he reverted them again without any edit summary or explanation.

He started to leave stupid messages on my talk page, impersonating an embassy worker for Spain in the Philippines, sending me silly messages about contacting the King of Spain - even though this IP comes from the U.K. He was already warned by Misplaced Pages administrators.

So recently, he left this message on my talk page.

"This guy "pacificWarrion" is stupid, I'm working for the Filipino people, for their reputation on this world, every information I shared is to give accurate information's about the Philippines, the Filipino people, their culture and history."

Now at this point, before yet another edit war starts, I think this guy should be blocked.

A. He makes edits without edit summaries
B. He continues to make personal attacks, even though he was already warned.

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

See this ANI thread, which was archived less than 24 hours ago, as well as this AN3 thread which resulted in both the 86' IP and PacificWarrior getting 24 hour blocks. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here are diffs of 86' getting rude on PacificWarrior's user talk after the block expired. Given these new comments and the racist/nationalistic nature of the user talk thread on the part of the 86' IP, a longer block is surely warranted. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another message he left: "I'm a dear friend of ambassador Domecq, all your messages will be sent to the embassy. CODE NAME: AMOR, Greetings to my friends residing in the Philippines."

There seriously needs to be some admin work here.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Well, I gave the IP an only warning for NPA. Anything further should result in a block. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week, because when I'd blocked them last time for 24 hours for edit-warring, I told them that any resumption of the personal attacks would lead to a much longer block. They chose to ignore me. Hopefully this is enough to convince them to go away. -- Atama頭 15:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing on Race and Intelligence

There are various viewpoints on the subject of performance differences between racial groups. Some claim the differences are due to discrimination, or systemic disadvantage, while others claim the differences can be explained by genetics, and that systemic disadvantage is negligible or non-existent, going as far as claiming that minorities experience a performance boosting advantage relative to what they would experience outside Western nations. Looking through the archives it is clear that editors AndyTheGrump and ArtifexMayhem are well aware of these sources. They wish to state in Misplaced Pages's voice that minorities are systemically disadvantaged, rather than supposedly disadvantaged. Misplaced Pages cannot state systemic disadvantage as fact, it is an opinion. Clearly these editors are pushing a POV, and making life difficult for editors on the talk page who promote neutral reporting, by demanding sources which they know exist. Can they be asked to collaborate rather than play silly dishonest games? BeauPhenomene (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above contributor, along with Eracekat (talk · contribs), is attempting to replace a sourced statement concerning systemic disadvantage (relating to minorities including African Americans, but discussing a more general case) with a weasel-worded reference to 'supposed disadvantage', while citing no sources whatsoever for any suggestion that such disadvantage does not exist. A Clear and unambiguous attempt to spin the article, based on nothing but personal opinions, and in User:Eracekat's case a generous dollop of ill-thought-out original research. As the talk page discussion makes clear. multiple contributors have tried and failed to explain policy on the need for sourcing, to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump knows the sources exist. Why is he wasting everybody's time? BeauPhenomene (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (comment actually posted by 98.176.2.34, 08:26, May 19, 2014)

Yours might be a rhetorical question, but what the heck. I would suggest that in an homologous sense it is for the same reason that one person's thinking is said to have "evolved" but the other person's thinking is characterized as being a "flip flop" or tergiversation. I personally prefer "tergiversation" because "flip flop" might inadvertently be comprehended as a particular type of footwear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, BeauPhenomene fails to cite a source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, Andy (if I may be so bold), asseveration without demonstration is worthless. If a claim is made it must be backed with the production of verifiable fact in form of reliable sources (for purposes of Misplaced Pages). I seem to be having trouble with indentation and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• At issue is this edit with the change: "A large number of studies have shown that systemicallysupposedly disadvantaged minorities" (with two other "supposedly"). Our opinions on "systemically" vs. "supposedly" are not relevant—the only consideration is whether "systemically" is supported by the provided references. It would also help to read the refs to see what wording they felt was justified. Another issue is that the word "supposedly" is a standard editorial comment to suggest that a claim is false. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative I suggested to simply scrap the paragraph due to it being non-verified (in addition to non neutral). I have read some of the references and they do not serve to support the stated claim because they also are opinionated. References have to be reliable, they cannot themselves simply state opinions. I have clearly stated the fact that affirmative action policies are the exact opposite of what the paragraph claims, they give and advantage, yet this is simply being ignored. How can a policy that has been around for decades and which leads to in some cases to 3 times as many African Americans than Asian Americans being accepted to college (with the same qualification) simply be ignored as not relevant. It is clear evidence against the disadvantage hypothesis, how could it not be?Eracekat (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that yet again, Eracekat is basing arguments on original research - though 'research' is actually perhaps not the best word to describe this ill-though-out collection of non sequiturs. As I have already pointed out, the existence of affirmative action does not preclude the existence of systemic disadvantage. And of course, the article isn't just about the U.S. anyway - the source cited makes it entirely clear that it is referring to a more general case, of which African Americans are just one example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A brand new red linked single purpose account on a topic which is notorious for repeated and constant long term sock puppetry even by the very low standards of Misplaced Pages in general... remind me again, why are we paying attention to this? Someone just found some extra spare time in their couch and is not sure how to properly waste it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Missed this discussion. I agree, it's a waste of time and I believe that BeauPhenomene is most likely a sock. The history of this article makes me unwilling to offer good faith. I also note that Eracekat has never edited a relevant article - he arrives here and then suddenly a new editor shows up to support him? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If the "new editor" refers to me (slips off the protection of a very nice, if I don't say so myself, tin-foil hat to enter paranoia mode so as to type what precedes this rather lengthy parenthetical aside). No, I know nothing of BeauPhenomene. And I would remind those who may be interested--"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is fallacious reasoning. Or, rather, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" as more appropriate (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.2.34 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And to settle the sock question I've started Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eracekat - it is possible there is no socking here and thus I think this needs to be determined. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sock or not, I think there is a severe problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. As far as I can tell, Eracekat has a hard time understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. On the one side we have published academic sources, on the other we have an idiosyncratic straw man and some questionable original reasoning trying to knock it down. Eracekat, BeauPhenomene, I strongly suggest you drop the stick and step back from the dead horse before a boomerang hits you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BeauPhenomene was blocked earlier today (not by me). Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes, User:John, but I have overriden your block to make it indefinite. I think the reason is pretty self-evident and stands by itself irrespective of the sock/meatpuppetry argument. NW (Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly ok, NW, I should probably have indeffed myself. --John (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Letrollmasterfedora

User:Letrollmasterfedora has demonstrated, by username and two edits (so far) that he is WP:NOTHERE to do anything constructive. Could an admin review and block, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, as was his friend/other account Lemestuffyomama (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

IP user wiki-harrassing

Hello,

I am fed up with a bunch of IP-hopping editors who have been harassing me in connection to the article and website Finnbay during the last few months. This is a very controversial website, and before the controversy (as detailed in the article) that made the site notable, there was a campaign of adding spam links to Misplaced Pages on its behalf (some of it is detailed here). The article in question has been heavily editorialized by the proponents of this website (who seem surprisingly numerous given the source's niché status), but I would not really consider this site a WP:RS. That's why I sometime ago made a sitewide search for outside links to Finnbay in Misplaced Pages (incl. web citations), and replaced them with comparable citations from more reliable sources and removing any unnecessary links to the website. Now, 209.222.18.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) does not seem to happy with what I did, and is calling my actions vandalism. After I undid him returning the external links to this site, he called me a "Finnish government agent vandalizing Wiki", which is clearly a personal attack. --hydrox (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's the status? Are we going to give a clique (or one person) pushing for promotional material in Misplaced Pages a free pass? I am tired of working with these people (or a single stubborn person using multiple IPs) and harassing me. I have gone past one edit war with them (him/her), and I will not engage in another one. --hydrox (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Harassment or not, the editor is clearly just a spammer. Anyone who is adding a huge volume of links to a single web site in an aggressive manner is someone I call a spammer. Considering this IP was used for some other purpose earlier this month, they've probably already abandoned it or will soon (as a dynamic IP) but to be safe I blocked it for a week.

As to the larger issue at hand, it might be worth discussing on WP:RSN whether Finnbay is a reliable source. If not, perhaps it should be blacklisted if there is a campaign to raise its visibility by indiscriminately linking to it on the project. -- Atama頭 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism from a range of IP's

This has been going on for months, an editor from IP range 202.152.86.xx adds incorrect information to movie articles, mostly cast members.

Special:Contributions/202.152.86.232
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.234
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.235
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.237
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.239
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.241
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.242
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.244
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.248
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.249
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.251
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.253
Special:Contributions/202.152.86.254

I am not sure what to do about this, as they pick new articles all the time, and the vandalism is so subtle that it is very hard to spot. Seaphoto 20:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the whole /24 range for 1 year. If similar edits persist, please bring it back here, and we can take a look at further measures to stop this sort of edit pattern. -- The Anome (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. May I suggest expanding that to the 20 through the 50 range, (example https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/202.152.86.227) as well? I just found other examples of this pattern in the that range (along with the others you can see above) and it extends into the 50 range too. I know this is wide, but I can see few useful contributions from the range (and they are from the same editor who vandalizes) , and this is the type of vandalism that persists, if not found, for years. I stepped through all the IP's in the range from 00 and 10 and they are clean. Seaphoto 02:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The block covers 202.152.86.*. If I understand you correctly, you want the addresses from 202.152.86.0 to 202.152.86.50 blocked; in that case, the existing block also covers those IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. Yes, that block is exactly what I rather clumsily asked for. This is the first time in almost 8 years I have run across this situation, so I wasn't familiar with the requirements. I appreciate it! Seaphoto 06:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct by IP editor 94.194.205.197

IP editor 94.194.205.197 is being uncivil concerning Lvivske on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic and User talk:Toddy1#Comment.

• 10:37 18 May, accused Lvivske of "spreading misinformation". No evidence or examples provided by the IP editor to back up the accusation.
• 12:41 18 May stated that anything that Lvivske writes, should be taken with caution.
• 16:02 18 May Again accused Lvivske of a "deliberate attempt of misinformation", whilst at the same time denying making a personal attack on him/her.
• 07:49 19 May Stated that Lvivske "deliberately spreads false information, and apparently encourages others to do this."

He/she was warned about making uncivil comments at 15:07, 18 May 2014.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be ripe for a block. This is clearly a single-purpose account which introduces POV into Ukrainian articles. Unfortunately, there recentle have been a lot of such POV-editing accounts, who believe that incivility is a way to prove that their POV is correct. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

Could somebody explain WP:no personal attacks to this user: User:The shaman poet? See this and this for the most recent examples. Said user rather obviously won't listen to any advice I give. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A case of incompetent spammer

A spammer, User:Tutza.anghel has posted several Romanian language religious rants. I request that she be blocked according to WP:COMPETENCE. I do not want to attack her, but it seems that she posits advertisement for a book containing a proposal to reform the Constitution of the Romanian state according to theocratic principles, and not even the usual arguments for theocracy, but imho, a constitutional reform which is a product of mystical delirium about the doomsday. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Her user page at ro:Utilizator:Tutza.anghel was deleted for spamming. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems unlikely to contribute positively, but with only three visible edits and nothing since the first warning (a level one warning), I'd honestly have sooner taken a wait-and-see approach and sent to AIV if Tutza.anghel passed a final warning (though for a textdump like this I might have considered an only warning). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

She is a cross-wiki spammer, see ro:Utilizator:Tutza.anghel and ro:Utilizator:Tuţa Anghel, where she repeatedly spammed ro.wiki with pretty much the same info as on her en.wiki user page (content still available in Google Cache). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've indefblocked the account: cross-wiki activity demonstrates that this is a persistent activity that is unlikely to be amenable to gentle persuasion. -- The Anome (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Any potential range block to stop the troll?

• 41.111.112.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 41.104.40.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.238.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 197.202.174.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.114.94.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.73.129.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 123.239.118.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.62.228.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Is there any chance theres a range that would block this troll without freezing out half the internet? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• 190.184.229.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and another-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• and 205.217.255.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --David Biddulph (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any commonality between the IPs... all over the place geographically, none seem to be proxies. Off-wiki coordination? Sailsbystars (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for checking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider watching ...Theredpenofdoom.

Suzannah Lipscomb

Over the last year or so the User:TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly disrupted this page such that it is now a shadow of its former self. There is now a discussion to delete the article https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb. He started the disruption by by constantly inserting comments about the subject's marriage that could not be supported by appropriate references, despite being asked not to as the subject was separated. He then went on to remove anything that was referenced from either the subject's own webpage or her employers. The accusation of WP: BLUDGEON has been made, although not naming this user specifically, but it is clear that is who it is aimed at. The user's approach is often aggressive and anyone who writes on the comments page regarding the deletion is put down. It has now come to the point where the only positive way forward would be to delete the subject's page, diminishing her and allowing the bully to have won.MdeBohun (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the OP has made no edits not on the subject of Suzannah Lipscomb. In addition, they have not notified TRPoD of this discussion, as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this then if not notification: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible bullying incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

written on and copied from User:TheRedPenOfDoom user page.

Thank you also The Bushranger for pointing out that I've made no edits elsewhere. I don't deny this, I've tried to keep the page up to date and relevant. All was fine until User:TheRedPenOfDoom started his repeated disruption, as he seems to have done to any other pages.MdeBohun (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, Afd is on going, I don't think it is right to open same discussion on multiple boards. OccultZone (Talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Even TRPoD has changed their !vote to keep following the hard work of someone other that the OP. You don't want an article deleted? Fricking fix it. I'll say, however, that if User:MdeBohun keeps up their attacks and WP:BATTLE behaviour, they're going to very quickly find themself blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Suzannah Lipscomb itself could use some eyes, re potential violations of BLP, editwarring, etc. Another SPA, Lw1982 (talk · contribs) (already previously blocked for editwarring there}, has now taken to inexplicably removing the title of the subject's PhD. dissertation referenced to two highly reliable sources. They are currently on their 4th revert of two different editors , , , and their responses so far have not been encouraging. See their talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And now a 6th revert, editing as an IP to avoid a 3RR block. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

voceditenore is adding unnecessary details about the thesis. Who care what the title was, just that it was awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the person's subject-expertise, which is part of the point of a biography of an academic. More to the point, why do you care so much that you want to remove it? Paul B (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does the person who keeps adding it care so much that they want to keep it in the article? How many other academics' pages state their thesis title? Shouldn't the page be focused on their professional career rather than their student life? (Lw1982 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

I refer you to the following Featured articles on academics, all of which state the name of the thesis in the articles: Edward Teller, Barbara McClintock, Hilary Putnam, James E. Boyd (scientist). There are many more. In any case, please continue this at Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• ...and I'll refer them to WP:BLOCK and WP:EW - just because you don't like it there, doesn't mean you get to keep removing it. Your reason is not one of the listed exceptions to being blocked the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• - are there users here that are above the law? User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves for example and redpenofdoom - User:TheRedPenOfDoom attacked this person - Suzannah Lipscomb a living person with a wikia story because he didn't like it that a comment that she was married was removed - WP:BLP is clearly a problem here, eatshootsandleaves is supporting redpenofdooms contributions, well rather deletions to the life story just wants to block the ass off any user who is related, the user he should be looking at blocking is User:TheRedPenOfDoom - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• In detail - looking at his history - and wikia contributions - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves should not be threatening to block any user - Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what happens when you make broad overreaching statements at ANI is that your commentary is generally discounted as hyperbole, as will likely be the case here. Present your concerns concisely and with specific diffs that back each of your claims, and be prepared to walk away if the reviewing admins and editors disagree with your interpretation of events or your desired outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

my objective was to remove the User:TheRedPenOfDoom control over the article Suzannah_Lipscomb and to get new editors input - desired outcome? this has been massively achieved - User_talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves threats are worthless - as are yours ponyo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your response to my advice is to make more accusations flung without any actual difs to support them? Would you care to show me exactly where I threatened you? You won't be able to because it never happened, and in making such flippant remarks you've shown the quality of your input here. You can continue to respond, but I won't be reading it. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, what are you talking about? EatsShootsAndLeaves (aka "the panda") has not edited the article at all, nor commented in the AfD. As an administrator, he was addressing my concerns over the edit-warring by Lw1982 to remove of the thesis title, and nothing more. Are you also aware that the editor in question, Lw1982, has now managed to insert the alleged married name of the subject into the article, despite their alleged concern to have information about the marriage removed? I know feelings are running high over that article, but really... Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I changed my opinion as the page is supposed to be unbiased about the subject's life and MdeBohun was using it to promote their acknowledged relative's interests and turn it into a promotional piece. (Lw1982 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

You tried to remove the title of her dissertation - which could easily make a reasonable user wonder if she actually wrote one - and keep adding the former married name she never publicly used, and you worry about another editor being biased? To me, your edits seem to be a clearly obvious attempt to introduce bias (ie. women are best judged not by their credentials but by whether they can catch and hold on to a man) into the article. --NellieBly (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased article and removal of reliable references in 2002 Gujarat riots

This ani is about Darkness Shines (talk) and Vanamonde93 (talk) along with the administrators who supported them . In this old version of the page 16:38, 14 February 2013‎ Rahul Catlover (talk | contribs)‎ . . (93,562 bytes) (+87)‎ . . (→‎Criminal prosecutions) , the criminal prosecution section The reference number 79 is removed in the present version as it states muslims got life imprisonment  : second case of reference removal, this also states conviction of muslims , third case of reference removal . reference number 85 was removed as this was also convicting muslims, ..fourth case of reference removal , reference number 86 was removed , this was also mentioning the conviction of muslims, fifth case of reference removal,reference number 86 was removed . as this was also pointing at conviction of muslims for killing a hindu, last case of reference removal in my point (as i am getting tired and sad that such things are happening in Misplaced Pages with the support of editors and administrators) reference number 88 was removed . All the above can be found here and then compare it with the current version here . Now Darkness shines and vanamonde has lots of explaining to do along with other administrators and users who were supporting them.

I hope there are good faith editors who would make sure that the page remains free from any bias or partiality. If someone has time to go through all the above references , the article can be improved

P.S. If you have extra time go through this The article is heavily biased against Hindus. The violence against Muslims is vividly described , quite a large number of users have raised the same issue. one editor even provided large number of references here , but still the current editor mentioned that books and authors are more reliable than newspapers and media (The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)) . Now how can one say that outsiders who don't have any access to postmortem reports and forensic evidence describe such gruesome details

In the Attack on Hindus section all these references were not used even though they were mentioned in talk page dr amit mehta stabbed in muslim dominated juhapura , harish parmar shot by bootleggers and the article from timesofindia admitting riots hit all class Amrit Chagganlal hacked to death , , , . All these references were not used by the editors as it would expose the truth that Hindus also suffred during communal riots. And so all those references from respectable and known indian media is ignored in favour of books and authors who were never part of the investigations. The facts mentioned in those books were never supported by any reputed indian media.

I am not suggesting word by word editing of my comments. but to include the references which were removed from crminal prosecutions with the correct language as mentioned in the first paragraph along with the references mentioned in third para with the correct language.These references are from reliable sources but how they will be written its up to administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.29 (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

112.79.39.62 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...and this is why the block of DS was a bad idea. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Great eatsshootsandleaves ...you are suggesting removal of references from reliable sources were justified . would you kindly go through the details atleast the first and last para. are you the only administrator here.There should be others 112.79.36.29 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I request All of you please go through the details above: User:Sandstein, User:Callanecc, User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves, User:EdJohnston, User:Drmies, User:Hipocrite, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. 112.79.36.29 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• That would be a lot easier if this wasn't so unclearly formatted. I've tweaked your roll call a bit, obviously. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• And, IP editor, yes you are perfectly entitled to edit as an IP. But I assume 112.79.39.144 is you--where on earth do I leave a note to say that this "notification" is so far from neutral that it can't see straight? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry actually i was feeling depressed that eatshootsandleaves didn't support my views : as i took so much time to edit. So i thought of tagging evryone involved in the arbitration request of Darkness shines. I want to know why those references are not present in the version of the page for last few months. And the other references mentioned in talk page that article were not used for editing. Main thing is that editors and administrators want to present a biased view of the article and i am trying to expose to the administrators112.79.36.29 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're not here to elicit sympathy: you want to "expose" us--well, good luck. In the meantime I'll direct the reader's attention to this set of recent edits, by Kumarila, in which this source, an article by Ainslie Thomas Embree, was removed. "books and authors are more reliable than newspapers and media", you claimed was said--well, I don't care what was said or whether you reported this accurately, but there is no doubt that books, if judged reliable and published by reputable presses (in this case Routledge) are deemed more reliable than newspaper articles, yes, if only because they can take the long view; and let's not pretend that the Indian press as a whole has a stellar reputation. Removing the Embree citation also removes a (re)statement of the official cause given for the train burning--and for those who think the article is biased, well, no details are cited, but one could add a quote from Embree: "There is no doubt about the horrors of the massacre of Muslims that followed, with Muslim women especially being targeted and brutally raped. The death count for Muslims was put at about 2,000, with 200,000 homeless, after the lawlessness raged for almost six months."

  That same edit also adds this, an opinion piece from a journalist's blog.

  Kumarila also adds this article, which reports on a report that exonerates Modi and others, but fails to include the critique of the SIT report in that article--for instance, "On this , the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots". Finally, they add this opinion piece (it's so obviously an opinion piece to anyone who reads it), to support "many other observers have objected to the use of words like "genocide" and "pogrom" for the Gujarat riots". So yeah, I agree that the article lacks proper NPOV, and while pouring over old talk page comments is fun (actually, it's not--since they're poorly written, unclear, and often soapboxy), it's much more helpful to look at the current state of the article which has, no doubt, received plenty of attention since the elections and will probably get a lot more. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that muslims got killed. I agree that muslims got killed in large numbers. But the fact that Hindus were also killed can be proved .There were lots of references in this version of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2002_Gujarat_riots&oldid=538247527#Criminal_prosecutions .. which is not present in the current version especially . I want to know why these references in relation to gujarat riots were removed. Please don't try to divert the attention from the first paragraph of this topic. I accept your view that books are more reliable than newspapers(this debate is over) . But coming to the main point now you have to explain why those references were removed from the page and administrators of Misplaced Pages can't be ignorant of the fact. lots of references present here is removed and administrators supported it . Explain why these references were removed from the article even though they were present here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2002_Gujarat_riots&oldid=538247527#Criminal_prosecutions

So Drmies (talk) please enlighten why those references are not present in the current revision of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/2002_Gujarat_riots#Criminal_prosecutions

Yes Vanamonde93 (talk) you can help by explaining my query above 112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep claiming that administrators somehow had a role in content? Indeed, this entire fiasco is a content dispute - one that can and should be discussed on the article talkpage. The sole reason that you appear to have brought it here was to claim that "admininstrators supported it". No. Administrators don't determine content. Editors discuss content on the article talkpage and gain consensus. Some of those editors happen to be admins. I see no proof that admins anywhere said "we are going to take X out of this article, and don't you dare put it back". ANI is not going to decide what goes into an article - that's not our job the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Look I am not blaming every Administrator on Misplaced Pages but some administrator must have supported the removal of references from reliable sources . I know every editor is not administrator but all administrator are editors 112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am not taking responsibility for anything I didn't do, and what I was supposed to have endorsed when, I don't have a clue--in part because, as others have also noted, this is such a poor report. But, to cite one example, you ask why this reference isn't in the article. Why should it? The conviction of those nine is in the article, with this as a reference. If it makes you feel better, you can add "your" reference to the article, and then there will be two. But as the panda notes, this is hardly a matter for ANI, since you haven't even begun to make the case that admins are somehow responsible of misdoings here. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay i will try to edit the page 2002 Gujarat riots backed by these references and these from reliable reputed Indian Media websites India Today The Times of India The Indian Express Hindustan Times Deccan Herald 112.79.39.94 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "I will begun the discussion on the article talkpage in order to try and get consensus to add some or all of the links I feel meet WP:RS and are pertinent", right? You're obviously beyond the "be WP:BOLD part of things the panda ₯’ 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde93

I am rather unclear why I have been dragged here, because I cannot remember a direct interaction with this IP, and a look at their contributions tells me nothing. The IP has provided no diffs, and the only comparison shows DS consolidating bullet points into a paragraph, and substituting academic sources for media sources. DS is currently blocked, so I don't know if he can post here; is there anything else I can help with? If at all there is an issue, it would seem to be for the RS noticeboard. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@112.79.39.94: And which query would that be? You have a rather long and incoherent post up there that I'm having trouble figuring out. If you mean why the references were changed, it is because academic references are significantly better than media ones, as has been explained to you many times over. Also, it would help if you paid a little more attention to wiki-syntax; I apologize for modifying your comments, but you started a new section, which I do not believe was what you wanted to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost majority of Misplaced Pages article has references from media websites. So I can't support this law ( references from newspapers , news channels, Indian media are all unreliable)which is made for a particular page not for every Wikipage. And i didn't start a new discussion . I said the same thing as i mentioned in the first paragraph of the entire section. If you kindly read the beginning of this ani request--112.79.39.94 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanadmonde93, can I ask why you created a subsection like this, instead of simply continuing the thread? This isn't an ArbCom report, we don't need separate sections if it's continuing the thread - in fact, since you're replying here, it's just confusing the whole thread!! the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I've been posting on SPIs for a bit, where I believe separate sections is considered good etiquette (thought I might be wrong there, too.) D'you want me to restructure it? In any case, shouldn't this thread be closed? There is nothing here for ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Separate sections in SPI are very uncommon, aside from those set up automatically (each report having subsections for the reporter, the accused and other editors, and one for admins/clerks/CU). You probably shouldn't be adding them there either. (Not that I'm a clerk or anyone of authority at SPI, this is just from observation after being involved in many, many reports.) Usually you only see people creating sections for each person's comments at ArbCom or RfCs, and in those cases you're explicitly instructed to do so. At ANI and most noticeboards, it's only recommended that you create a subsection when you have a very good reason for some sort of break in reporting (for example, when you're dramatically changing the subject but with something still relevant to the thread, such as requesting a topic ban or the like). Doing so flippantly can look like an attempt to grab attention though I don't think that was your intent at all here. -- Atama頭 22:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks; as you said, attention grabbing was not my intent. Regardless, I'm assuming there's no point trying to set it straight now, because the filing party has taken the issue to RSN as instructed by Dangerous Panda/ESL? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Link spam

Several IPs in and around China have popped up adding fansites to these two article: Aliens_vs._Predator_(video_game) and Aliens_versus_Predator_(video_game), threatening to report anyone who removes them, calling them names, all that yada-yada. The user(s) state that they are official sites, but the sites explicitly state that they are not. I pointed this out to them, which led to refusal to acknowledge it, trying to sneak them in with false edit summaries, and now flat-out refusing to communicate beyond dismissive edit summaries. A clear case of tendentious editing in my opinion. Eik Corell (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Aliens versus Predator (video game) for a month. Black Kite seems to have already semi-protected Aliens vs. Predator (video game) for the same period. -- The Anome (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Got distracted in between semi-ing and making a note back here :) Black Kite kite (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are these non-commercial fansites? Remind me why we shouldn't include links to them? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all non-commercial fansites are bad, just that most are. The ones that are larger, longer-lasting, and have potential notability set from more reliable sources can be reasonable to link to, with the understanding they still are SPSs and often parrot information reported by reliable sources.

This is not the case for the above AvP articles. They should definitely not be included. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Religion-baiting by User:Barney the barney barney

Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) has made multiple derogatory comments about religion, Christianity in particular, the most recent of which is to oppose a DYK nomination on sole basis that the subject is a theologian. I would like an administrator to take a look at this user's edit history, because there are several very suspect interactions where he/she is really pushing the limits of WP:CIVIL.Ἀλήθεια 11:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to provide diff's where he violates WP:NPA. But the commentary of an athiest (if that's indeed what he is) is acceptable - he's not attacking a faith, he doesn't believe in the existence of a God (which based on your reasoning is an attack on a whole number of faiths). I read his DYK comment that he's opposing DYK on someone who got a PhD in a subject he disagrees with - which is his prerogative and his opinion. Why on Earth you're modifying his comments there is beyond me ... the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The comment in question is this. I'd say he's within his rights to observe that the hook is "dull"— I tend to agree— but the gratuitous potshot against believers is hardly civil. Personal attacks are the beginning of what's demanded, not the end. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with that comment, certainly nothing near a personal attack. This complaint is astonishingly petty. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm more concerned, however, that Ἀλήθεια's revisions of Barney's comments are in direct violation of WP:TPO (I realise that technically speaking DYK discussions are in the Template namespace, but WP:TALK specifies that it applies to other pages where discussions take place as well as the Talk namespace). Continued attempts to derail discussion by amending or deleting other people's comments is a pretty good way to get the blockhammer pointed in your direction... Yunshui _水 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sorry that I broke that rule. However, you'll notice this is not a complaint about a personal attack but that the user in question seems to be engaging in religion-baiting, and doing so is a breach of WP:CIVIL. My very specific objection is that he/she has put a link to the article for "God" as a piped destination for the comment "something that patently doesn't exist". I don't object to him/her holding that opinion, but it has no place in a discussion about the merits of a DYK fact. I accept the judgment of the community that the hook I've selected may not be the most interesting thing about the subject. I do not accept that in passing this judgment it's OK to take pot-shots at a belief in God. Ἀλήθεια 13:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barney the barney barney: please try to avoid causing offence to other editors by suggesting that belief in a higher power is somehow foolish: whilst you are entitled to disbelieve the existence of a god, other editors are equally entitled to believe the opposite. @Ἀλήθεια: please do not change other people's comments in discussions, for any reason. Since there is no reason for adminstrative action here - no-one's getting blocked, topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned for this - I suggest we consider the matter closed. Yunshui _水 13:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. @Barney the barney barney:, please accept my apology for initializing this resolution incorrectly by changing your comment. Ἀλήθεια 14:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I had closed this, but I may have done so prematurely, and perhaps Barney's edit deserves more discussion by others. I personally find it not blockable though in very poor taste (a kind of soapboxing with some intent to harm), but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Yunshui: I disagree. Religion seems to be a new topic to be censored at DYK.--v/r - TP 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Yunshui's remarks were a fair summary. I do not want religion censored at DYK, and think that Barney's remark was an unfair attempt to do so; however (as my recent DYK error report attests) I am keen that religion should be treated neutrally - which Barney's remark also fails to do. I wouldn't expect to see admin action for any of this this time, but if this proves to be a common pattern, then perhaps. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Opposing on the grounds that something is about a figure associated with a particular religion is questionable, but I don't think it's actionable in the ANI sense. The people at DYK should be free to decide whether such an oppose is invalid. Ἀλήθεια has admitted that the refactoring was improper, and apologized for it, so no action needed there. I am still concerned with Barney's comments... I don't think he should be calling Ἀλήθεια's refactoring "vandalism" or calling the DYK nom itself "religion pushing" (though I acknowledge it was something of a tit-for-tat in response to his oppose being called "religion baiting"). —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, I think there is not much else, really, to do here, other than to leave Barney with a slap on the wrist for making such comments as this or this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. There really isn't anything we can or should do about those edit summaries beyond a warning. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it’s not an editor’s privilegium to oppose an article about a theologian because he dislikes theology/religion. That would be equivalent to a creationist opposing an article about a biologist because he dislikes the evolution theory. Taken seriously this would be a major violation of NPOV, but in this case it’s probably pure disruption/trolling. Iselilja (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments. One, I regret to say, comments by purported academics can at times be among the most insane one will ever read. This can be particularly true in cases where, for instance, an academic might be saying whatever he can think of to defend a trendy belief of some years ago, like the alleged direct ties between the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus, who are now considered by academia to have been around 150 years or so apart. Not knowing the particulars of this particular instance, they might not be the case here, but I know of several examples in recent years that are of that type which can sometimes create problems here. And, unfortunately, particularly in religious fields, sensationalist crap, even sensationalist crap which has already been basically already rejected by the local academia, can sell big time - hello, DaVinci Code. If we had a theologian saying Jesus was a Vulcan, and some have said similar things, I as a religion editor would call that, um, things, too.

Two, I don't see the clear diffs here. What would be useful to see here, which I don't yet see, is the specific discussions involved, and the specific nature of the comments called into question, because, yeah, unfortunately, sometimes the opinions of Christians, even Christian theologians and academics, can deserve to be insulted. If someone thinks that there is sufficient basis to file comments of this kind, I think a user conduct RfC would probably be more useful and productive. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a Vulcan, but perhaps a mushroom? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Allegro's opinions on that matter have received very little support of any kind recently. Too bad. Holy communion might be a lot more interesting otherwise. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm astonished that a block is even being considered (at least by one admin) A block for what? For saying "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist"? Where is the blockable offense here? Anybody is entitled to have their opinions and believe in the tooth fairy if they so choose, does that mean the rest can't dissent and express openly that such thing does not exist? Seriously what is this, Conservapedia? Regards. Gaba 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see TParis redacted Barney the barney barney's comment claiming WP:NPA. I see a clear personal attack in the comment by Mangoe which was also redacted in the same edit, but I'd like to ask: where's the personal attack in Barney the barney barney's comment? Because all I see is his honest opinion not directed at any editor in particular. Regards. Gaba 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no idea why TParis redacted that. It's not a personal attack, it's a personal opinion. OK, it's perhaps not the most collaborative thing ever, but it's certainly not a PA. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The context it is in makes it a personal attack. Context matters. Had it been on the user's subpage or to a fellow editor who shared the same belief, then it wouldn't be a personal attack. In this case, it was intended to demean another editor's beliefs.--v/r - TP 21:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Which context TParis? I'm sorry but your answer is insufficient to explain your censoring of an editor's comment. This is setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can't openly state his opinion that there is no such entity as a "God" without risking being WP:CENSORED and/or threatened to be blocked by an offended admin. I believe you should undo your redacting of Barney the barney barney's comment ASAP. Regards. Gaba 21:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Let me think on that. Umm, no. WP:NOTFORUM. Barney is free to share his opinion on his talk page and user page. DYK is not a 'free speech zone'. It's for discussing DYKs. This is a project, not a place to push beliefs. If someone creates a religion article, they do not deserve to be harassed for wanting it to be able to be on DYK just like every other article. The Wikimedia non-discrimination policy says we cannot discriminate based on religion. That's not up for debate, that's a WMF mandate. No precedent is being set, this has always been the case.--v/r - TP 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
            • So the rigour of all academic degrees and disciplines is beyond discussion now? Or is it only religion that receives this privilege? How about a DYK on someone getting a Doctor of Bollocksology from an obscure college in my back garden? That beyond criticism? DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
              • It just does not matter what either of you think here. We are mandated to treat religious beliefs the same as sexual orientation, gender, racism, ect. Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural? I wouldn't either. What this is, is demeaning another editor's beliefs intentionally to cause emotional distress. That's what is happening and you are defending it.--v/r - TP 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • You are causing me emotional distress by denying my strongly held religious belief that theology is balls. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • This isn't about the DYK though. We wouldn't redact a user simply claiming, on a talk page, that homosexuality is a choice (it's their opinion, regardless of how plausible it is) as long as they weren't directly attacking another editor ... would we? Black Kite kite (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • (If you don't believe me, go and look at Talk:Homosexuality. We argue the point with such people there - we don't redact their posts. Black Kite kite (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                • How is saying "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" harassment and/or discrimination? You saying "This is a project, not a place to push beliefs" sounds rather ironic given that you just pushed your belief by censoring his comment and threatening to block him. I have no idea why you think WP:NOTFORUM applies here, the editor commented on a DYK giving his honest reason for opposing it and commented how he does not believe a "God" exists. This most definitely should not be an open invitation for editors/admins who do believe to censor his comments (you were not the first to do so, by the way ).
                  "Would any of you support an editor opposing a DYK that said homosexuality is a choice and not natural?" Probably not, but 1- what does this have to do with this issue? and 2- I wouldn't censor the editor either. Incidentally, I wouldn't support an editor opposing a DYK on the basis that climate change doesn't exist either. Does that give me the right to redact his comments and threaten to get him blocked? Regards. Gaba 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Who have I threatened to block? Please provide a diff of the supposed claim that I would block anyone. I mentioned several times that someone deserved a block, but if you think I threatened at any point to do it, I'd love to see a diff. Climate change isn't a protected belief, sorry to say. Piss poor analogy. What does my analogy have to do with it? Religion is a protected characteristic in law and WMF policy, the same as sexual orientation.--v/r - TP 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • And absence of religious belief is just as worthy of protection as the presence of such a belief. Priviliging religious believers over non-believers is no different to privileging one religion over another. No personal attack was made in the assertion about the academic legitimacy (or otherwise) of theology which you redacted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • When an admin states "What barney said deserved a block", I take that as a clear threat of blocking. Saying that either "god" or homosexuality don't exist is neither harassment nor is it discrimination which is what you imply and your apparent rationale for censoring his comment.
                      And yes, you are setting a dangerous precedent where an editor can have his comment blatantly censored for stating simply "(theology) by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist". Regards. Gaba 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
                      • Admins are allowed to discuss whether editors deserve blocks without it being a threat to do so themselves. What you think is a clear threat of blocking isn't seen that way by the rest of the project. So no, you're wrong. Determining which articles go on DYK based on religion is discrimination. That's what Barney did. But play whatever silly pretend game you want, you're not convincing.--v/r - TP 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Theology is not, in fact, "by definition an attempt to study God". Theology can mean all sorts of things these days, sometimes it is used interchangeably with "religious studies". Quite often in Britain it is called "divinity" but some of the professors of it believe in God no more than Barney the barney. Just sayin'.Smeat75 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It is by no means a personal attack to assert that theology is an attempt to study something that does not exist, I find it hard to understand how anyone could think it is. Or are we now in a situation that as soon as someone asserts a religious belief all discussion or criticism of it is to be silenced? ridiculous. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious epithets directed against a person or group of people can be considered a personal attack (specifically attacking an editor for having a religious belief, or attacking people in general who have that religious belief). Criticizing a religious belief in a general sense is usually not considered a personal attack, since a belief isn't a person, unless it's strongly implied to be directed at a person (someone says "I'm a Buddhist" and you reply "Buddhism is stupid" would probably qualify). But taking a stance like that could be considered soapboxing, or at least off-topic discussion, which can be removed depending on the circumstances. A person who is engaging in that kind of talk and knowingly derailing a discussion can be considered to be editing disruptively and can certainly be sanctioned for it. Not that I think this situation rises to that, though, I think it demonstrates poor behavior from BtBB and Ἀλήθεια alike. -- Atama頭 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we redacted every post imputing something about a defined group of people (Christians, gay people, Tea Party members, Scientologists, climate change denialists, members of WP:ROADS, whatever), we'd be here all year. That's not to say such posts are particularly useful in a collaborative environment, but I don't think you can count them as personal attacks unless you stoop to the levels of "All X are f***ing idiots" (or similar). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we don't make an effort then we're just going to let the garbage build up.--v/r - TP 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but context - and meaning - is everything here (see my post about Talk:Homosexuality above). Black Kite kite (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and in the context of a DYK, religion bashing and baiting is inappropriate as the dozens in this thread have aptly explained.--v/r - TP 22:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The fallacy here being that there is either "religion bashing" or "baiting" with an editor commenting:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."

which is definitely not true. Regards. Gaba 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No way it should have been REVDEL'd ... it was not bashing a faith, it was expressing personal faith opinion, and atheism has been formally recognized as a faith choice. the panda ₯’ 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be REVEL'd - it's absurd - but Barney wasn't just' expressing a personal faith opinion; he was also arguing that that opinion was a good motivation for not posting the proposed item. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not revdel'able either. I can say "I disagree with the Ford GT being nominated for Good Article because it comes in blue and I don't like blue" ... not much different from his argument at DYK ... in other words, not an argument the panda ₯’ 23:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The color of someone's truck isn't a federally protected character trait or one recognized by WMF policy. Someone's faith, or lack of faith, is. Reword your argument using one of the other protected character traits and then decide if it's a valid argument.--v/r - TP 00:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The revdel was probably a bad idea, maybe more than that, but if someone really wants to take action about that, it might be better to start a separate subsection to deal with that matter. And while I agree with the panda that it might not be an argument, it is fairly obviously a rather serious violation of TPG and kind of completely indefensible in the context in which the comment was made, which is reviewing articles. Yeah, I make lots of sometimes really bad jokes myself on these noticeboards, and they might be sanctionable in a sense, but I think most of the time they are kind of obviously at least intended as humor, and don't attack anyone other than myself and the poor souls who have the misfortune of having to deal with me and my smartass mouth. I don't think that there are necessarily grounds for sanctions against Barney either, but it might help if this thread were broken up into separate sections if the revdel is going to be considered for action. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been revdel'd and no threats of blocking have been made. Those have been either misunderstandings by Panda and Gaba or they were misrepresentations. But neither reflects the truth that edit histories and revdel logs clearly reflect.--v/r - TP 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Redaction of a comment by admin TParis

Following the advice given by John Carter I'm opening a new sub-section regarding the redaction of a comment by admin TParis. The thread above this one deals with the supposed misbehavior of an editor when he commented the following on a DYK:

"Man gets degree is I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable biography, but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour."

TParis redacted this comment removing the "but is an area (theology) which by definition is an attempt to study something that patently doesn't exist" part claiming a violation of WP:NPA. I maintain that this is a bad edit (or administrative action, whichever category this falls under) and that is sets a dangerous precedent where an editor can have its comment censored basically because an admin feels his/a faith is under attack. It is my understanding that I am within my right to express my opinion that any "god" doesn't exist just like others will claim it does, without expecting this kind of actions.
I personally urged TParis to revert his refactoring of that comment to which he refused. I'd now like to hear the input of others, especially admins, on whether the original comment of that editor should be restored or if in fact TParis is correct and it represents a violation of WP:NPA. Regards. Gaba 01:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I maintain that the WMF Non-discrimination policy prohibits the discrimination of editors based on their religion - which includes their contributions to DYK. Barney's comments were that a DYK shouldn't be run because of religion. That's discrimination. This isn't optional.--v/r - TP 01:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that you might be incorrect, TParis. I don't think it falls to the community to decide when something is discriminatory against "users or prospective users", and that it may fall to the Foundation to do the enforcement. It might also be questionable whether this particular action is discriminatory towards Christian "users or prospective users", though I think the broad language might be key. It's also not clear whether individual users are barred from expressing discriminatory opinions, rather than the Foundation and projects being barred from making use of them (i.e., whether the DYK oppose is flat-out invalid under Foundation policy). Thus, if the policy is being violated, the Foundation should be the group doing the enforcement. Regardless, I believe that we can view the policy as instructive... we probably shouldn't allow !votes in any Misplaced Pages process to hinge on any of the enumerated categories (i.e., an oppose because of the article subject's race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation). It just harms the project's credibility. Now, whether such an oppose is sanctionable... I feel there is (at best) no consensus on that. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your first thought would not be in line with Arbcom ruling in the Manning case. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Conduct_during_discussions: "Misplaced Pages editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." That seems in line with the WMF policy. As to your second, yes I completely agree. Which is why comments have been redacted and no one has been blocked. Repeated comments like that should be grounds for a block, though.--v/r - TP 01:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary

It's been mentioned here already in the past week, but could admins please keep an eye on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc de BinaryMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary as the end of the discussion nears? There is all sorts going on there; CoI editing, multiple SPAs, lots of quacking like sockpuppets, editors making multiple !votes, editors making changes to other editors' !votes... GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary. The other AfD was closed last year. What a mess though. Number 57 13:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the correction. Fixed above. GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The previous AFD discussion should be listed on that AFD page, if they are indeed about the same article the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. The last discussion was WP:Articles for deletion/Banc de Binary from January 2013, when Banc de Binary was spelled with lowercase 'de'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got to laugh when the SPAs from the actual company itself are !voting to delete the article. They put it up and then found out that the article can't exist as a whitewash, but must accurately represent the (dodgy) history of the company. Unlucky. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean un LUC ky? ;) -- Atama頭 22:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

multiple copyright violations by User:Commons sibi

It seems that User:Commons sibi has been posting copyrighted information from various internet sources word for word. I am posting a few links as examples,

• 1.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Competition_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=599555660
• Removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Competition_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=608556092
• 2.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bureau_of_Civil_Aviation_Security&diff=prev&oldid=601795537
• Removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bureau_of_Civil_Aviation_Security&diff=prev&oldid=608555082
• 3.
• User post: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Election_Commission_of_India&diff=599267338&oldid=599243670
• Removal:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Election_Commission_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=608416326

The concerned editor contacted me via my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGsingh&diff=608570262&oldid=608559233) and said he would provide me with an explanation after 24 hours, so i decided to wait, but it has been 4 days and no response has been given.

I feel that given the copyright violations that I have found, there must be many more that the editor has done which has not been uncovered. It doesn't appear it is being done with malicious intent, but the plagiarism must be reverted somehow.

Gsingh (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gsingh: You may want to use this form to email Oversight to revdelete the copyright-violating diffs. Epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer copyright-infringing diffs to be revdel'd, not oversighted. You OK with that, Epicgenius? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have found the requisite five instances of copyright infringement, I have filed a report at CCI. The user remains unblocked pending his response to this thread and the opening of the CCI case. Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Demiurge1000: Or that can be done—but the best forum for this is WP:CP or WP:CCI. This thread should be closed and moved there instead. Epicgenius (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I was considering putting it on WP:CCI but it said to try discussing it on this forum before. Gsingh (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.

Can another experienced editor or administrator please explain to John Pack Lambert that he shouldn't "attack" anybody, whether they're on Misplaced Pages or not, and whether they have a personal history with the person or not. This edit was in response to an earlier warning, so maybe if he hears it from someone else he'll take it more seriously. Maybe if he can be shown the value of showing just basic general respect now, he can avoid hurting himself or the project later. Nothing is to be gained by bad-mouthing an off-Misplaced Pages person here, regardless of how deep-seated his personal feelings are. I also don't think bringing her family into it elevates the discussion in any way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He might even learn how to spell "privileged" in the process. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. NE Ent 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Filipacci was rude, inconsiderate, and was the main force behind a movement that engaged in personal insults on me, attempts to attack me for my religion, clear and unquestioned attacks on me as sexist, and unjustified attacks on people for attempts to follow a specific policy. She has never apologized for her rudeness, and as a public figure who has shown me disrespect, and whose actions are still used to try and justify attacks on any statement I make, I see no reason to back down. No one has ever apologized for the unjustified, unkind and down right mean-spiritedness of the attacks on me that were lobbed a year ago. I get brought here, when it was Filipacci who instead of discussing her views in a proper forum, engaged in biased attacks on a very public forum. That was the ultimate in not bringing the issue up personally. I am not the only person who has mocked Filipacci for using her privalges and connections, and I see no reason to back down from it, at all. Why do we have to bow down to the will and desire of such pampered, privaleged people? Why am I the one who has Jimbo Wales make an uneducated and uninformed call for me to be excluded from wikipedia? I have spent lots of time and effort trying to improve the project, and I have to show for it is rudeness. All I get out of it is people over and over attacking me. Some on multiple occasions in what clearly shows deep seated animus. I am not backing down here. I was clearly defamed, and many people on wikipedia were fully ready to throw me under the bus to protect themselves. I am sick and tired of privileged people who go around trying to claim there is some sort of discrimination against them. It is rubbish, and I am tired of having their views not be challenged. No one has ever apologized for attacking me, and I am mad about that. I have been among the few who have tried to work on systematic corrections to the issues that Filipacci brought up, and for doing so I get attacked by people who hold a view that not having gender-specific categories is sexist. I am not going to back down from mocking some people. Not while others have not backed down from their attacks on me, and in fact were never properly called on their attacks on me. The fact that people went and hunted down an off-wiki statement I made, and then took it out of context to attack me is very, very objectionable. And none of them were ever called on that. I on the other hand have only ever mocked Filipacci for published statements she made with the intent to disrupt and undermine the normal working of wikipedia. When a person makes a public statement with those intents, and disrupts the normal workings of wikipedia in so doing, I see no reason that we should show them respect. We normally call that canvassing for votes, and condemn it. That is clearly what Filipacci did, she failed to explain the issues properly, wrote in a biased way, and messed up internal results. I see no reason to mock her for her canvassing, especially since because of it people still engage in personal attacks on me. No one has apologized for the attacks on me, and I am tired of double-standards that allow such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban. The user condemns himself up above. I can't imagine anything anyone could say here that's worse than his own words. John, this is why attorneys recommend you remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, how did this entire argument start? I'm not seeing anything in John's contribs from the past month. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it related to this? Since this is John's last edit on the page, about a year ago, I have difficulty believing that the argument has lasted this long. What happened recently that prompted this thread? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• It started with this exchange back on April 17th "Upmerge Although, it is proof of how self-centured Filipacci is that she hasn't gotten her dad to let her write a scathing expose in the NYT about this problem that Obi-wan has identified for us. She only cares about Misplaced Pages categorization when it affects her. Alternately we could try splitting by century, but I'm not feeling up to that project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You should consider striking this direct personal attack against Amanda Filipacchi. And you certainly shouldn't be demanding another NYT article as proof that someone "cares". This is an embarrassment.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" Evidently I am supposed to show defernce to Amanda Filipacci. What I would like is for someone to apologize for the unfounded attacks on me as sexist. No one ever has. They were mean spirited and just plain wrong, and Filipacci brought them about through her yellow journalism, and it is a sad reflection on wikipedia that so many of its editors joined in the attacks instead of looking for the real truth. Many people on wikipedia have exactly the mindset of lynchmob members. They attack without learning what is really going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can't demand an apology from anyone else". That's the civility policy, John. Now, stop talking and posting about Filipacci. Get over it, and move on with your life. This comment appears to support an indefinite block for threats and personal attacks on a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you expressed any apology for the fact I have been unjustifiably accused of being a sexist, I might be willing to give you some listening. However you are just demanding I sit back and take accusations of being a sexist from people who have never really considered what I feel, believe or do. That is very hard. You have not had your one mention on national media be accusations of being a sexist. You have not had Jimbo Wales call for you to be banned from wikipedia just because he cares more about image than the sharing of knowledge. You have not been threatened with being a sacrificial lamb to advance some undefined agenda that conflicts with the stated ones of wikipedia. I do not get any sense that you care one iota about what I have been through.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have not made a threat to anyone. No one has explained why I need to show deference to Amanda Filipacci, but she can ignite a whole storm of attack on me. The very fact that "threats" were mentioned in the above talk is another example of uncivil language directed at me, and an attempt to limit me comments on what was a very unthoughtout and illinformed essay. Anyway, as long as other people can use the Filipacci episode to try and attack my right to comment on anything, which was about three months ago, getting on my case for coming back with biting criticism of her mean-spirited articles seems to be reasonable. No one has ever claimed that she was anything other than mean-spirited and uninformed in what she wrote. The fact that I got called sexist and worse by editors of wikipedia is also very disturbing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'm probably overreacting, but I have to say that if people believe that wikipedia should be a place of civility, insulting them for misspelling a word, and the general tone of most of the comments above are the antithesis of civility. This is a classic example of using very uncivil and rude approaches to try to force someone else to be civil. This is a double standard at best. People can be rude and cutting towards me, but if I say anything rude or cutting about anyone else I will be threatened. The people who have failed to assume good faith are those who have constantly acted like me attempts to remove the problem of splitting people off into only gender-specific subcategories are being motivated by animus. Actually, though, if people really want to call for an end to uncivil discourse, they need to propose an end to the use of the term "ghetoization" in the discussion of categories. Those of us who have spent time teaching in Detroit Public Schools can not see that as other than an overhyped term with no meaning in this discussion, and those of us who have spent large amounts of time studying the Holocaust question the use of Ghetto in any modern context. As long as "ghetoization" is a term thrown around so lightly, and used to accuse others, I find any claims that anything else is uncivil suspect at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • John - you are welcome to initiate any kind of counter offensive you choose to combat what you believe is an attack on you. You just can't do it on Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What if the attacks happen on wikipedia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • You report it here and let the other person get blocked. If what you believe are attacks are supported by third party sources, you go after the sources off-Misplaced Pages.--v/r - TP 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
        • A small point, TP, but you might want to clarify that you meant "go after the sources off-Misplaced Pages" in legal or generally moral ways. I don't seriously think you would counsel off-wiki attacks or seriously counsel "any kind of counter offensive". I see what you were getting at but I also hope you see how it could look to someone who isn't familiar with you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I think it would take a special person to think I mean violent attacks. However, for clarity...^^^ what he said.--v/r - TP 01:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
            • That's cool. I just didn't want you to be the admin accused of telling someone to cause trouble for somebody in real life instead of just saying the much cleaner, "Don't cause trouble here".__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a talk page comment warrants a topic ban, especially when it extends to just a single person. I'm sorry, John, that people jumped the gun last spring and attacked you, personally, about an issue of categorization that should have been a policy discussion. I think if you are waiting for an apology for rash statements made a year ago, you will be waiting a long time. Editors' tempers got the best of them, they probably regret their words now but they've moved on. As hurt as you might be, you have to let this resentment go, as long as you are editing Misplaced Pages. It's not good for you or the project.

You know I disagree with you on having gender-specific categories (I'm for them) but I also acknowledge that you have a ton of experience (over 200K edits!). As for ghettoization, I've seen that term used as a reason against gender-specific categories, not in support of them so I'm surprised you would bring that up.

As for Amanda Filipacci, that is last year's news and I see no reason for you to continue to bring up her name unless you are editing her article, which I would advise against. But that's just my two cents. Liz 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• The Misplaced Pages is not a personal platform to lash out at one's external critics; go start a blog for that. If this behavior cannot be self-regulated then I fully support a topic ban on all matters related to Ms. Filipacchi. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing diffs of the alleged transgressions by JPL. I certainly don't consider this adequate for significant sanctions (bans / blocks). NE Ent 01:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that accusing a person of gaining advantage in her career because of nepotism is a rather bright line to cross, BLP-wise. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusing a person on the BLP article or on the BLP article's talk page? I can see it the possibility of a block or a topic ban being given. Doing it on a talk page of another user should be a clear case of WP:NOTFORUM in that regard, but I don't think it is breaking any BLP policy as it was not on the person's article talk page nor in the main space. It seems to be just a rant, and I don't see why a user should should get sanctioned for that. (Even if is out of taste or uncivil) Tutelary (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-star/Dragonron back

In the past hour or so, I've had two edits of mine blindly reverted by 166.205.55.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see and ). The IP made very few edits prior, and I remembered that this blind reverting was the MO of Wiki-star a.k.a. Dragonron from earlier this year. In January, Mark Arsten blocked 166.205.48.0/20, a range previously abused by Wiki-star in his childish dispute with me (documented here), and because Mark is on WikiBreak, I would like to request that someone put the kibosh on this debacle before it goes on further...again. Also, it might be pertinent to do a checkuser to see if he's going to be transparently "hiding" again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:69.47.197.27

I think someone should take a look at these edits by User:69.47.197.27. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just vandalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Or it seems to be related to this SPI case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Torgownik at Russell Targ

Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as the subject of the article Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite several warnings and patient explanations, he continues to make contentious and inappropriate edits to the article (e.g. , , ), rather than requesting changes on the Talk page or from one of the supportive editors who are active both there and on his user talk page.

I don't want to see him banned, not least because that would feed https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152195637913218&id=295503008217&comment_id=10152195729103218&offset=0&total_comments=1 his conspiracy theories about Misplaced Pages], but it's hard to know what do do when he refuses to accept that continuing to make these changes is inappropriate, not least for his own reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not added anything controversial to my bio page for several days. I have been peacefully and very extensively answering questions for a wiki editor (Wnt), on the Warning page. I changed my start date at Lockheed from 1986, to the correct date 1985. But that doesn't sick. The editors strongly prefer the incorrect date. I will let it go. I added Helena Blavatsky to my father's publishing. People seem to think that's OK. I do not know what this current fuss is about. I have surrendered to overwhelming force, since you are obviously free to write anything you wish. Torgownik (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Torgownik (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

• Targ is not the aggressor here. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Russell_Targ#Targ.27s_personal_commentary_being_cited_in_the_lead in which Goblin Face announces that "I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Misplaced Pages being put in the lead . The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Misplaced Pages but it also contains a deliberate lie." The "comment" is simply that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Apparently Misplaced Pages rules not merely insist that he be branded a pseudoscience, not only rule out citation of any source disputing that point of view, but rule out even mention that he himself could possibly object to this self-evident enlightened point of view. And we still don't have that in, right now, because it's been repeatedly reverted. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Auburn Tigers football

This page is being frequently targeted with poor information regarding national championship. I have presented information on the body of the page, and have tried to start a conversation on the talk page. It's not just one poster who's doing this. Basically, a large group of posters want, or think that Auburn has more national titles than they actually claim. As you can see they claim only 1957, and 2010. There are a total of 5 national titles awarded by NCAA documented selectors, but 3 of those 5 aren't officially claimed by Auburn i.e. 1913, 1983, 1993. They are referenced in other material from the University, but no where does it make an outright claim, or change the status of what they claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards