Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:27, 8 April 2015

• 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?

Ongoing problem with anonymous editor

I've hesitated a few times about posting a request for help here, but I feel the editing/talk patterns of an anonymous editor on several of the articles pertaining to particle physics requires some attention. I'll cite 3 pages as examples: Bohr magneton, Neutron, and what prompts this request Neutron magnetic moment The trouble is documented, IMO, on the talk pages to these articles. The editor works under several anonymous IP addresses and it surely seems to me exploits this ambiguity (sock puppetry). On the magnetic moment page, IP nos 193.231.X.X, 5.15.X.X have been used. The talk page for neutron has other IP numbers; to good approximation all those anonymous IPs are one person, seems to me. On the neutron talk page ("Dimensional inconsistency") the editor denies it is one editor, which seems strikingly false. As you can see from the dialog there, the editor attempted a "word dump" of nonsensical gibberish in an attempt to keep some weasel words in a section from being removed. This is one reason why I post here - there seems little sense in responding/talking to the editor; that's like adding gas to the fire. The editor regularly pushes peculiar POVs, in particular he wants to challenge the (well accepted) quark model for hadrons. I cite the Bohr magneton article because it sure seems to me the editor attempted to rename this physical constant to the Bohr-Procopiu magneton, ignoring the Talk discussion from several editors about it. I recently changed back the article to greatly downplay this renaming effort. These IP addresses are all from Romania. The editor has been around WP for quite some time, not a novice, yet still seems to perceive this encyclopedia as a general forum for establishing or challenging scientific facts. On the Talk:James_Chadwick page this editor (c.f., neutron talk page for same 79.119.X.X IP) suggested that Chadwick was not the discoverer of the neutron; another theme of the editor, out-of-the-way people needing to be properly credited for discoveries long attributed to better-known people. The editor seems to edit in good faith, but he is an aggressive, if not abusive, editor. The editor refuses to open a proper account, though he has been requested to do so. (And I see the editor has just now reverted me again to include a bibliography entry in Romanian on the Neutron magnetic moment page.) Help? Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No need for this inflammatory or tendentious(?) noticeboard involvement. Bdushaw, familiarize yourself with WP:NONENG before stating that I reverted you again on using foreign languages (Romanian and Russian) sources that are to be cited.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not involved in the issue on the Bohr-Procopiu magneton (which I see is old stuff) issue mentioned by Bdushaw, who by the way, seems to have a bias against non-English scientists, including the biased comments against Dmitri Ivanenko.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Another remark is that user Bdushaw seems to have something against IP's from Romania.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I see another imputation to me: the suggestion that Chadwick was not the discoverer of neutron, which seems to be a twisting of aspects presented on that talk page which is attested in other languages Wikipedias on Chadwick.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I introduced this complaint, there has been a blossoming fight with the usual endless gibberish-logic on the Talk:Neutron_magnetic_moment page. All over a silly book in Romanian the editor wants to put on the Neutron_magnetic_moment page, against all rhyme or reason. It is this endless argument, time and time again, that is the reason for the post here. This behavior is not acceptable - it drives editors away (including me). When one hesitates about editing out of fear it might offend this anonymous editor, something is amiss. See also the User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones page; Jones has recently valiantly tried to contribute, but has encountered the usual (abusive, IMO) nonsense. IMO the anonymous editor certainly exploits the multiple, constantly changing IPs to abuse the Misplaced Pages process; there are levels and levels of duplicity, seems to me. Bdushaw (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The lines above are Bdushaw's wishfull thinking. Bdushaw, if you don't like content suggestions proposed by the IPs, this is not a reason to obstruct the improvement of content by resisting the requests for adding details that helps to conceptual clarification.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Bdushaw about the IP editor: a clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR. The various IPs are obviously all the same person (they all resolve to the same provider, and the similarities of style are crystal clear). Whether he's hopping deliberately or not is uncleatr to me, but he certainly seems to enjoy the ambiguity it provides. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

These are ridiculous aspects. Focus on improving the content, not on who is making the suggestions(the IPs whether the same or different person should not be discriminated). I think it is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT the content suggestions.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So, any action on this...? Seems concerting... --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the implicated IP(s) is insensitive to the opinions and requests of others, is disruptive and writes much that is nonspecific and disparaging. This has a disruptive effect on the efforts of well-intentioned editors. This reaction on my talk page to a routine notification is completely out of place. Administrative sanction may be appropriate. —Quondum 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was beginning to think this issue was winding down, and perhaps that was the end of it...but now we have this latest entry to the Neutron magnetic moment talk page: diff. This seems to me a laughable sock puppet. 193.231.X.X has been a contributor to the Neutron talk pages. I don't think I know enough about the mechanics of Misplaced Pages to be able to suggest a remedy. Bdushaw (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that this editor (who may or may not be the same person) will learn more of the interaction and style on WP, and settle down. Notice this edit series from the same a similar IP address as your diff where there is an apparent lack of understanding of the use of ref tags for references; this may be related to the insertion of links that are not directly used as references. —Quondum 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There are several points of similarity between 193.231.X.X and 5.15.X.X posts, but it is not likely important at this point. The editor may settle down or wise up, true, but I've seen little sign of contrition, alas. It occurred to me that I posted here partly because the editor has no Talk page (I was at a loss as to where to post the notification for this entry); but he has certainly been happy to take advantage of regular editor's Talk pages. The discussion above seems inappropriate on any particular article's Talk page. Perhaps it might be useful for Misplaced Pages to create a system for Talk pages for anonymous editors? Would that just encourage them to not register for a proper account? The problem does not seem to be at the level where semi-protection of various articles is required. Partly the issue is that I feel consciencious about talking/resolving issues whereas that seems hopeless, or even counterproductive, with this editor. But quietly revert warring doesn't seem like quite the answer either... (Bdushaw, on travel with forgotten Misplaced Pages password) 70.162.49.170 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've reviewed the Talk page, editing history and the IPs. Consensus from established editors at the Talk page is that the editing is disruptive and I agree. It seems likely it's one person using several IPs, but that doesn't really matter. They all showed up from a geographical location that en.WP doesn't get so many edits from, all at the same time and at the same article with the same agenda, making some unsourced article edits and exhibiting WP:RGW issues. I've semi'd the article for a week, and also took the unusual step of semi'ing the Talk page too. From my review on the article Talk page history I don't see that much editing from IPs (outside these edits) so I think collateral damage is minimal.

Bdushaw you were correct to bring this here but also could have brought it to WP:RFPP. If the disruption continues after protection expires I'll happily keep re-applying until it stops. Zad68 18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible disruptive vote-stacking and sock editing at AfD

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

Hi. I'd like some help on looking into a matter at this AfD. It was started by Buzzards-Watch Me Work. A few days after it was started, IP editor 164.106.2.242 posted a delete vote. This IP editor has little or no edits outside of this AfD. Infact, he only had 4 edits in the last 2 years, but somehow comes straight to the AfD. His IP address is in Northern Virginia, the same place where BWMW comes from, according to their userpage. There are more comments about this on the AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts 06:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

BMMW and the IP have used the same edit summaries on other article. Usually they update the results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Those !votes would be ignored by the admin closing the AFD. §FreeRangeFrog 07:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'm not so much concerned about the outcome of the AfD, but the fact that it looks like an obvious attempt of a sock at work. Lugnuts 09:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a look into this? Thanks. Lugnuts 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have sockpuppet concerns please file an SPI, I don't think there's conclusive enough evidence here for any immediate action. That aside, I've messaged UtherSRG because I don't understand why the AfD was closed as delete. Sam Walton (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well an admin who is wrong is never going to admit it. Pretty poor outcome there TBH. I'll go with the pointless circus of SPI in anycase. Lugnuts 18:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User: Shivanshsinghrajpoot

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

Not sure where to report this. Shivanshsinghrajpoot (talk · contribs) has been disrupting articles on Indian rail (mostly by adding unsourced material in all caps, see here and here for examples), despite being told not to by Widr, Mjroots and Anthony Bradbury. The user has also made zero talkpage edits as well, although English is apparently not their native language. The user's edits, while likely done in good faith, are highly disruptive and are a chore to clean up after. It would be appreciated if someone could take a look at this user, and help sort things out. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been said on my talk page, this is looking like a competence issue. I'd like to try and work with this editor as Indian railway stations are a valid topic, but if he ain't going to co-operate then there's not much we can do other than an indef block. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the account was blocked by Anthony Bradbury. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Could do with some admin assistance.

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

Doing my rounds on huggle when I came across an edit to User:Doruk Babalık which redirected it to User:Sapiocrat. I am not sure if this is a legitimate alternative account, one of the most blatently obvious sock accounts I have ever seen or something else entirely. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The page should be deleted under CSD U2 because User:Doruk Babalık doesn't exist. Epic Genius (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of those words mean, but my Misplaced Pages signature links my name to User:Sapiocrat, and displays my name. Another user tried to link to my name in response, and used my displayed name, which did not resolve to User:Sapiocrat, so I added a redirect. If this was not okay, feel free to remove it. I would appreciate some advice on how to correctly form my wikipedia signature though, so that every user who wishes to link to me can do so easily. Doruk Babalık 14:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So it's simply an alternative name for your account? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat, it may be better if you just created an alternate account named User:Doruk Babalık. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius Okay, thank you. Still getting the hang of all this. Apologies. Should I do so after the page User:Doruk Babalık gets deleted? I gather I won't get mentions of notifications that way though. I'll just change my signature. Doruk Babalık 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll remove the CSD request now, if you can create the account. Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, let it get deleted. Just changed my signature to display only my nickname. Sorry for all this trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapiocrat (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it WP:G7 and WP:U2 based on the above statement. -- GB fan 15:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Sapiocrat- just to let you know (sorry if you knew already) but under your 'preferences' page, you can change your signature with Wiki-markup whilst keeping your original username- so you can still have both if you want? _Fortuna 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Two

Abusive user continues evading blocks and disrupting Misplaced Pages. SLBedit (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Massive multi-party disruption at Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean-related ethnic articles

Fellow admins: the situation of multi-party POV warring on Assyrian-related articles is out of control. Background info: this is about a group of minority populations in Syria and Iraq, whose diaspora communities are riven by deep-seated infighting between rival ethno-religious factions, regarding their preferred appellations and the preferred ancient peoples ("Assyrian", "Aramean", "Chaldean") upon whose alleged inheritance they build their claims of "identity". There have been constant petty naming wars ever since the beginnings of Misplaced Pages. It has always been the case that virtually every user who ever took an interest in editing the topic was a member of one of the rival factions and here to pursue their pet agenda; editing from all sides of this mess has been equally bad. In recent months the disruption has reached new heights. There have been at least three massive sockfarms fighting each other for several months. I just blocked half a dozen accounts the other day; new accounts and IPs sprang up immediately. Just yesterday I took great pains in explaining to all involved that a certain contentious quotation (about which they had all been edit-warring) was indeed demonstrably a fake (as one of the factions had been claiming) ; today I find the quote re-inserted into yet another article yet again by yet another new IP .

I need more eyes on all the articles involved, especially:

• Assyrian people
• Assyrian continuity
• Assyrian
• Terms for Syriac Christians
• Name of Syria
• Arameans
• Michael the Syrian

... but there are many others into which this mess has spilled over, basically any page related to this group, their name or their various ancient homelands.

I don't know what to do. There are no "good" versions to revert to, because whenever you remove one side's tendentious crap, you are only reinstating the equally tendentious crap of the others. Normally, I would ask for discretionary sanctions, but those will be of little use: DS arrangements are for protecting potentially constructive editors and giving them a safe space to work in by shutting the disruptive elements out – but here we have nothing but disruptive elements.

Unless others have better ideas how to deal with this, I'm thinking of applying the radical "Liancourt Rocks"-type strategy: stub all the affected articles down to a skeleton version or delete them outright, fully protect the lot of them for half a year, and allow gradual rebuilding only through edit requests to be vetted by uninvolved competent editors on the talkpage.

Ideas? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the Liancourt Rocks page blank my screen???? Just curious. It doesn't now. Odd! _Fortuna 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it this looks like a good strategy for certain intractable problem pages. I have a question. Could you give us a brief overview of how well the strategy worked on the Liancourt Rocks page? Has this strategy been used anywhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf's Liancourt Rocks option and full protection sounds like a good idea, we'll just have to monitor the onslaught of edit requests but, at least the pages will begin to grow objectively. Also some kind of guideline for blocking repeated frivolous edit requests. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks-related articles have been on my watchlist for years and aside from brief flareups on talk pages, everything is quiet and stable now. --NeilN 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is the right solution. Such disputes mirror off-Wiki ethnic and religious controversies, and will not be resolved until the off-wiki issues are as well. If ever. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a mess. I've tried to follow some of the discussions and it seems like outside editors can't participate without them being falsely identified as being affiliated with one ethnic side or the other. It's like the concept of neutral editors is not accepted by the primary parties. And there is also talk about Misplaced Pages cabals/cliques influencing the articles. It all discourages uninvolved editors from jumping in and editing. Some of the sources are also tainted by bias. This area needs editors knowledgeable about the Middle East field who have thick skins and can avoid being provoked into disputes. Liz 23:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As Lt. Ripley once said: Nuke'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Fully support the Liancourt option here. It will bring some sanity to a very problematic area. §FreeRangeFrog 23:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how this totally unrelated dispute resembles, in a sense, the protracted dispute that is discussed in the "handling COI" discussion above. Different subject, similar issues. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I was thinking the very same thing when first reading the above COI discussion. Just a note, for editors adding Fut.Perf. list to thier watch, please add Mosul. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not belittling the powerful views held on all sides in all these kinds of disputes. In fact, it's just because of the sincerity of such views that such disputes are so intractable.Coretheapple (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a obvious reason that the pages in this topic area need protection. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, folks, for this feedback so far. Based on this apparent consensus, I have begun with the protection and partially stubbing back (or reverting to old versions) of a few articles (starting with Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden, which had been left with a completely nonsensical lead sentence ever since an edit-war in 2010, without any of the warriors ever noticing; I also deleted a long-standing POV fork of the same article at Assyrians in Sweden and removed some apparent source abuse at Name of Syria). Please note that in making these content edits and then imposing protection, I am WP:IAR'ing on our normal admin "involvement" procedures; I'm putting it on the record here that I believe this to be justified on the basis of the consensus here. If anybody has procedural objections, please let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a general observation: as more contributors to Misplaced Pages come from new parts of the world, we will see more of this deep-seated infighting over names & facts. (A mild example of this is the chronic but low-level edit-warring over numbers of Christians & Muslims in Ethiopia: historically Ethiopian Christians have been in the majority, but due to population trends & the growth of Protestant Christianity there, Muslims are now the most numerous group -- per the Ethiopian government's own census returns. But this does not stop individuals in or from Ethiopia from "correcting" the figures. So far it's just been a matter of reverting & moving on, but I expect one day this will become a Yet Another Flashpoint.) About the only solution I have is to get ahead of these problems -- if you know of them, which is the trick -- & provide reliable citations for the preferred name/factual assertion. Otherwise Liancourt Rock-style protections will become more common. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

IP accusation of disruptive behavior

Jayron RGloucester I thought that the existence of the title was unfair and so changed it. GregKaye 13:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

RGloucester has begun to behave destructively in the article Second Battle of Donetsk Airport (WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR). At first, RGloucester removed a constructive edit (wikilink to the Donetsk bus shelling article) of one user together with a vandal edit of another user. The constructive edit was made in the article after the vandal edit, so, at first glance, it was looked as a coincidence, that RGloucester removed the constructive edit too. Therefore, RGloucester was warned on his/her user talk page to not involve other users with their constructive edits in his/her edit war with vandal users, that he/she could use removal of vandal edits as an excuse for hidden removal of others' constructive edits. However, RGloucester ignored the warning, and waited a vandal edit to appear, then he/she removed the vandal edit together with the constructive edit again. As you can see, the constructive edit was made before the vandal edit, so it was not a coincidence. RGloucester has purposely removed the constructive edit even after the warning. Because I am not going to start an edit war with RGloucester, I am sincerely ask the administrators to warn RGloucester for his/her destructive behavor, admit that the edit is constructive (wikilink to to the Donetsk bus shelling article) and return it back in the article.--85.140.223.188 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is very odd. I wasn't trying to revert the link, merely to get rid of the same rubbish blanking that I've been forced to revert for weeks. The link has already been restored. By the way, IP, who are you? RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right to ask, RG; it's a very procedurally detailed post for an inaugural edit (not counting one from seven years ago...) _Fortuna 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume you want a comma after "ask". As to the IP, there is a Moscow-based IP-hopper editing the article, which would account for things. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

He is not the only one edit warring, there are more than just 1 editor. Someone protect the page? SamuelDay1 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring has now stopped. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

'Competence is required' issues with User:Mishae

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

Mishae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term Wikipedian who started editing in 2009; he's been around for long enough that he should know, broadly-speaking, what to do (and what not to do), and how to engage with other users, and the broad-strokes idea of what policy permits and prohibits and where to go if you're not sure. Despite this, Mishae is consistently incapable of engaging with other users in a productive manner, and makes endless newbie-like mistakes that drain the energies of other good-faith contributors.

In February 2015, Mishae decided there was a policy that said it was preferable to have a dead link than a link to an archived version of a page, because that's what he thought "you can cite offline sources" meant. The same month, he made an edit that altered content that he marked as minor; when a user asked him to please mark such edits as major edits, he informed them that people are actively prohibited from templating experienced users, and kept leaving them messages over and over again until the user had to ask Mishae to leave. Mishae responded by opening up a thread on my talkpage in which he explained that, as the more experienced user, he should get to be the one templating people.

Mishae has also run into nearly endless copyright problems, and again demonstrated a refusal to admit fault when they occur; in December 2014 he was told an article of his was a copyright violation and tried to justify it by saying that it wasn't a copyright violation, it was close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source. This was followed by copyright violation cautions and notes on 24 February and 1 March of this year, and preceded by a warning on 18 December. That's four distinct articles in a 3 month span, with no real learning between their creations. That's while not understanding how references work despite having, again, been editing for six years.

The final straw, however, was how Mishae has been treating User:Kingofaces43. Mishae decided to remove the Wikiproject Insect tag from a large number of pages. Kingofaces43, seeing this, did exactly what we'd ask any user to do; they politely asked Mishae to stop and opened a discussion about it on the relevant talkpage so people could discuss what the best approach here, was. And then warned Mishae again, because while the discussion was ongoing, Mishae continued making the changes. And then a third time because, with the discussion still going on, and after two warnings, Mishae continued making the edits. At which point Mishae admitted his edits were potentially disruptive, called Kingofaces43 a troll, and asked me to step in - which I promptly did to explain that the edits were problematic, with Mishae taking away from that: "thank you! I'm glad my edits aren't vandalism".

I am, at this point, completely exhausted in dealing with Mishae, which I would mind less if he wasn't also draining energy from other users attempting to engage in good faith. There is a consistent pattern here; Mishae overestimates his own knowledge, patronises other users when they correct his mistakes, denies that they are mistakes, and aggressively insists that he is right even when it's clear to everyone else in the conversation that he is wrong. This is deeply taxing, and from a newcomer would be potentially understandable, but is not tolerable in someone who has been here for over half a decade. Mishae adds value to the encyclopedia - but when he is wrong, he sucks in a lot of time and energy dealing with it, and consistently fails to learn from his failures.

• I would like the review of this user and their contributions by other people, additional perspectives on their attitude and competency from people who have dealt with him (or who are coming to this for the first time, here), and I would like the ultimate question to be around making a competence block. This has gone on for long enough. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mishae has been doing complex gnomish changes that are completely wrong-headed, as in the example of the Insects project. See User talk:Mishae#Wikiproject Insect and see if you can make heads or tails of his reasoning. Somehow, he needs to stop doing this kind of thing, but it may not be easy to persuade him. Unfortunately a competence block would be the obvious answer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Per EdJohnston, a competence block may be necessary but I'd like to see what Mishae has to say. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Mishae should take temporary retirement from what he is currently doing, he should learn more, and avoid these circumstances. Per Blackmane, I would also hear Mishae. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mishae's editing was also questioned in the WP:PLANTS archives. He edits quite rapidly and the information added is often wrong, misleading, or hard to follow. Mishae has shown some willingness to change his behavior, but it took far too long to convince him that removing spaces and newline characters wasn't a worthwhile task and was actually disruptive (and now that I mention it, I noticed a few days ago that he was at it again, though in a less disruptive manner that left the structure intact, e.g. diff). He edited thousands of articles in that way, placing the infobox text on just a few lines which made it harder to edit them. After the AN/I discussion about this, he made little effort to retrace his steps and undo the damage. He is sometimes combative and has trouble communicating with other editors, often perceiving insults where there are none. I have seen many editors try and fail to facilitate discussions with other editors who come to his talk page to ask a question or make a suggestion -- they often burn out rather quickly. After so long and so many issues, I do not think that any amount of coaching will produce better edits or improve interactions with other editors. Mishae gets into trouble mostly when he's trying to perform a large number of gnomish edits. The only way I could see his continued participation in the project as a benefit to it would be a restriction in the number of edits he could make in one day, thus forcing him to focus on broader improvements to articles. Gnoming is certainly beneficial but not when done hastily and carelessly. I agree with other editors here that a competence block may be the only solution to prevent further disruption. Rkitko 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Before anything is done here I'd like to see what Mishae has to say. Caden 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see on his user page that Mishae has a box saying "This user is autistic". Not saying that's an excuse, but it could factor in his apparent inability to interact well with other people. Squinge (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  Ah, and he also says "I'm autistic, and I have cerebral palsy as well". Squinge (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, but not too much. Autism could sometimes carry communication issues with it. Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• ...user boxes should not be treated as fact, that's right isn't it Caden? Cassianto 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cass where did I say that? Anyway I thought it was understood that you were not going to follow me around anymore? Caden 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall go wherever I like and talk to whom I like. This unwritten rule of "not following you around" is understood by nobody other than you; get over yourself. Cassianto 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep it up Cass and it wont be long before you are blocked again for personal attacks or maybe this time it will be for harassing and stalking. God knows you have a big block log already. Guess it will just get bigger at the rate you are going, right? Caden 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you taking the moral fucking high ground with me Caden when you are saying things like this and this to BMK. It appears you are winning no friends here so run along, there's a good boy. Cassianto 00:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for taking time to discuss my issue. I understand that my behavior was disruptive and I am deeply sorry. (It was partly due to my condition.) Working on the project is an important part of my life and I would like to be helpful. I think that I should cut down my gnomish edits and focus on creating quality contents (3-4 a week). I'm also able to make contributions in archiving of dead links, with which I didn't have an issues, and even was awarded for it. I understand that everyone is very busy but it would help me if I could contact someone if problems arise.--Mishae (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like you to contribute productively, but the examples you pick don't say much about your willingness to understand what the problem is here. The problem is not the edits - the problem is the attitude you take when people try to talk to you about them. And the two examples you've chosen - quality content contributions and dead links - would be more meaningful if it wasn't for the fact that the quality content contributions are described in the very first message in this thread, as creating copyright problems, and the dead link work is surfaced as an example of the attitude you take when contradicted by individual editors. This is not giving me the impression that you grok the problem, here. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: At the very top of the thread you said that where to go if you're not sure. You know, I tried to invite user @Koavf: for a discussion on my talkpage, unfortunately he never replied. Back in 2014 I tried to ask user @Worm That Turned: (or was it @Kudpung:) for some guidance when it came to my comments, and got nothing in response. As of now Kudpung's status is busy, but when I tried to ask him back then, he was online. I also tried to reach out to @Ryan Vesey: but none of the above editors were available. As for copyright that one that I did in March 2015 was just a bot error, for which I shouldn't be blamed since it was bot reading reference posting as copyvio (I can't invent a link, can I)? As for the rest, yes I admit, it was my fault, but I asked a user for assistance and he helped me. I also would like to note that I never had an issue with a contributor about dead links. Please understand that I am trying to follow the rules and promise not to be confrontational in the future.--Mishae (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

...yes, you did. You got in a dispute with an editor because they kept adding links to an archive site you were unfamiliar with, and you decided that the policy around using offline sources meant deadlinks were preferable to archives you didn't know. If you can't remember it, it's, again, in the first message in this section. And, yes, you reach out a lot, but I note that this often comes after you have got in a dispute, with an attitude of "let me call in my older brother, he'll sort you out", and not to avoid disputes in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mishae's a tough case and perhaps I shouldn't be commenting on it because I've been away so long, but I really wonder if there's something that can be done. It seems like (and seemed like back when I was more familiar with the issues) that Mishae's main problem isn't his edits. His main problem is that he responds poorly to any questioning of his edits. The question I have is does he respond at all? The big problem that he had two years ago was that he consistently made edits where all he did was remove spaces. Is this still occurring? If not, it shows that he is at least responsive in some manner. Either way, WP:COMPETENCE is still an issue. Mishae has expressed a desire to make only substantial edits for 3-4 weeks. I think something like a topic ban from any namespace other than his user space could help solve this problem. Allow him to do nothing but create articles for a while and perhaps he'll focus more on creation and less on the gnomish edits that often result in problems. from I know we don't make punitive blocks, but in situations like these I think punitive blocks can be preventative. This was certainly the case with me, I was blocked for ten days and as a result came back as a productive editor. Perhaps one or both of these options could be a helpful short term solution. Further, we should be more clear with Mishae that further problems after this will result in a longer month to year long block or a ban. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi @Ryan Vesey: I personally decided that I should focus on archiving and content creation/improvement (like major editing) rather then gnoming around (unless archiving is partly gnoming?). Perhaps WikiProject Insects was the final straw in my gnomish editing. I don't like the way that you propose topic ban, since when I did archiving I didn't got in any trouble and even was awarded. I can be trusted with my article creations but I need some guidance in creating copyvio free and grammatically good article (that's when I asked Ironholds, and got redirected to a different editor who helped me clean up copyvios). I once created a great article with @Animalparty:, and you know, I didn't have a single issue with that user. I also didn't got into any arguments with @EricEnfermero: when it came to creating Panos Kalnis article. So, as you can see, I am trying to improve gradually. Unfortunately different editors treat me differently: Some issue me a warning in such a tone that I accelerate. Is it something that I can try to work on? Yes, but I need someone to be present so that when I do get into an argument, I wont be alone. I do occasionally ask for help when conflict arises. Problem is, is that when I ask someone for assistance, I don't get it. I'm glad that you came back, and I am sorry that you see me like this. :( As a side note; I think topic bans are for vandals who engage too much into content addition/removal without consensus agreement. Correct me if I wrong though. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as @Rkitko:'s diff goes, I was thanked via notification by @Benny White: for it. With that said, I think that user Rkitko should stop complaining about such minor occurrences. As a side joke, people who issue such concerns and do it often, end up being old faster than others. :) I hope that Rkitko will not hold a grudge against me for this joke.--Mishae (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We had some difficulties on the Kalnis article. After I fixed some grammar and took out what I felt were a couple of non-notable/unencyclopedic assertions, you reverted and described the edit as "a complete vandalism" in the edit summary. We came to a good understanding and and I didn't hold any ongoing grudge, but I am surprised that you would use the Kalnis article as an example of strong teamwork. In general, academic BLPs can be a difficult area. There is confusing terminology in that area and any of us could make a mistake, so that makes it important to remain open to feedback from other editors. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @EricEnfermero: O.K. Perhaps I supposed to have said one of the strongest. I'm glad that you don't hold a grudge, and I need to point out that the reason why I called his edits as a complete vandalism was because I saw him removing over 500 bites of content. By removing such amount he gave me a reason to believe that vandalism have occurred, but after that we had peaceful discussion and issue got resolved. So, in short, some editors are easier for me to talk to then others. Plus, its not easy to communicate with editors when some of them are away and don't even have an alternative on how to reach them. I would like to ask if its possible for someone to give me one of the editors Skypes, which will benefit this project a lot. That way, if I will have an issue with someone, I can paste a link into Skype message and notify an editor for immediate response that way, even if he will be away.--Mishae (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I hope you don't mind a comment from me, Mishae, but in the current dispute you had @Ironholds: trying to help you on your talk page while the argument was hot. But you didn't listen, you just carried on insisting you were right and argued with him too. Can you see why that might argue against your idea that having someone to turn to for help could solve your problems? Squinge (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: For what it's worth, I haven't known Mishae to be a vandal or someone who is deliberately trying to make the encyclopedia worse. I don't know that I have the time to assist in this particular case, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • @Ironholds: Where is the diff of this: In February 2015, Mishae decided there was a policy that said it was preferable to have a dead link than a link to an archived version of a page, because that's what he thought "you can cite offline sources" meant. I remember it differently. I remember that I removed dead link instead of archiving, but now I got more experience with it and am confident to continue my good editing. Please stop making statementsa which were one time-only and bring them up here, as I was some kind of a vandal that came to destroy this project. Even if it did happen, I do remember that there was an instance when I removed archived version probably because that archived link was dead, because I was confused, a simple nudge in the right direction did helped me. And now you are bringing it all up again.--Mishae (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1. I didn't just have you blocked at AIV;
2. I said, in the opening section you keep implying you've read, that you add value to the encyclopedia;
3. See (1, 2).

And yes, I misremembered; you did remove the dead link over using the archive. I'm not sure how that's much of an improvement. And yes, the nudge in the right direction helped you, and yes, I am bringing it up again, because the attitude you displayed in that conversation is part of a very wide pattern that's attested to by multiple users in this discussion. If you genuinely don't think that patterns are valuable in indicating a direction forward, I...really don't know what to say to you.

If what you needed was a simple nudge, I would nudge. I have nudge; I challenge anyone here to take a look at my talkpage archive and tell me I haven't consistently been providing nudges to you. But however many I provide, there are always more things to do, and they can always be traced to the same core problems: that despite vast editing experience, you consistently misunderstand or are ignorant of the most basic policy, and see no need to inform yourself before responding in disagreements, and that your attitude with other users is competitive, hierarchical and has a chilling effect on their contributions by making it actively unpleasant for them to interact during disagreements. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that you called me a vandal, but users Rkitko, EdJohnston, and Blackmane brought up negative impression on me saying nothing positive. I'm not looking for encouragement, but I just feel that they feel that they are fluffy and nice and I am a monster who shouldn't be a part of this team. As for core problems, everyone have them. I could not think of a single editor who wouldn't be without core problems being present. For me its especially difficult. I know that a normal person can hide his core problems and pretend like nothing happened, but for me its harder. Having a disability is not an excuse, but living with it is not easy. Mind if I bring @LRD NO:, @RGloucester: and @Dkreisst: to this discussion? Also I had a constructive editing with user @Animalparty:: on an article called Gonzalo Giribet.--Mishae (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to stay out of this ANI being in the thick of attempting to work with Mishae, but the situation doesn't look to be improving. Mishae is still engaging in sniping and battleground behavior , claiming WP:DONTLIKEIT when an editor disagrees with them instead of actually addressing what the issues are , it's not me it's you, etc. It doesn't appear this editor can edit in a collaborative manner when they want to do something that others disagree about and resorts to lashing out instead. WP:IDHT seems prevalent when actual questions are posed as to what a specific problem is and how to address it while this editor seems to have a narrow "This is what I want" type of and how dare you think otherwise focus instead.

I made it clear at fist I didn't want to seek a block for Mishae when I warned them awhile ago now , but given that there's actually a lot of history of this behavior with it persisting up to now even with warnings, I'm not sure if there are really any other options at this point. Topic bans or interaction bans wouldn't seem to be the right scope either. I'll support a block if others think that's the course to go to prevent this toxic atmosphere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I argue with you only because you don't hear it. I brought legitimate examples why the template should be removed, yet you continued to argue that my comments weren't relevant or can be solved the other way. Users @AshLin: and @Gug01: supported my idea, and yet you decided that it should be your way still. Moreover, he accused me of drama, and adversarial behavior, and yet how does he behave? Look at his support of a block in this discussion. To me, user Kingofaces43 is an editor who likes to support blocks on any editors that he finds undesirable. Tell me why you want this template to be present, right here, in this discussion? Because of entomologists that are blind and stupid in your opinion to find an insect they are looking for? Because that was one of your reasons. As for toxic atmosphere that was only between you and me. Maybe we just don't understand each other? Either way, you see it one way, I see it different way. I can be wrong too but not in this discussion. :)

I've heard you plenty fine, and I've been trying to work through the problems you've been bringing up, their validity, and how to address them calmly and by the book. Hearing does not mean accepting what someone argues for, but acknowledging why they brought it up and seeing how it needs to be addressed. Sometimes that's going to mean addressing the things you see as issues an entirely different way, or not seeing them as something that's a valid concern. You're still approaching this too hot-headed with the "weren't relevant" common as it seems you're still not getting it that some of the things you are bringing up aren't decisions to make at the current Wikiproject, but at the other one. We don't make decisions at one Wikiproject for another. Misinterpreting comments as some slight to you is not helping the situation. You're trying to fight your viewpoint in moreso than trying to actually work out what the actual problems. The rest of us are handling it respectfully regardless of what we think, but you are here because you are not doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: & @Kingofaces43:. My POV is neither for or against either your stands. I keep the focus on the article rather than people. Imho articles of WikiProject Beetles which are definitely relevant to the parent WikiProject Insects should have both tags as both editors tacking Coleoptera and Insects overall will be improving those articles. In the matter of species articles, I hold the opinion that adding WikiProject tags may not tangibly help the article. So its an intermediate position though I had not meant it to be a via media. I was opining having been requested by Mishae. As such, if I do have to take a side, I stand with Kingofaces43's POV as adding Insect tags may improve the chances of the article for improvement. AshLin (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@AshLin: What a bald move! First I read your comment, and I assumed that your POV was neutral, now I am seeing you siding with him too. Why? Were you paid by him to be on his side? I'm very disappointed.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae:, I'm not on his side or your side but only on the side of what is good for the encyclopaedia. Please be WP:CIVIL. There is no excuse for your accusing me of being bribed by @Kingofaces43:. Desist from personal attacks or I'll start a separate ANI on your misbehaviour. AshLin (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I probably didn't knew it was a personal attack, sorry, but threats of separate ANI is not better for me or you. Unless you just want to punish me for every fart I make, and this is not good. I maybe overreacted, but you have no right to threaten me with another ANI, one is enough headache for me as it is.--Mishae (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should apologize to Kingofaces43 for my behavior, and hopefully a block wont follow. So, if its possible, please let Kingofaces43 know that I am sorry for any issues that I have caused. I will now wait patiently for decision.--Mishae (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point I think the community really needs to weigh in. There's no doubt you're approaching this in a good faith manner, but actions done in good faith can still be disruptive. That's what this posting is primarily about, so apologizing, while helpful, isn't going to necessarily close this. We need to figure out out how to solve this problem by figuring out how to solve the persistent behavior issues to address the key point here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question for admins. Mishae is continuing to edit war by replacing tags on a massive number of articles. What's the best way to stop this edit warring when it's clear they won't listen? They've been warned about this on their talk page that they need to get consensus for these widespread changes at the Wikiproject first (which there isn't yet). They've ignored that warning on their talk page at least three times now. Is this kind of behavior something that WP:AIV is better suited for considering the number of edits the user is making? See: . I'm not sure where the best place is to address this more immediate issue while attempting to discuss general behavior or even reach a consensus at the Wikiproject. There aren't clear reverts since I just warned them to stop rather than attempting to revert all the mass changes, but would this be more appropriate at AN3? Mishae is going through a massive number of articles where I'm thinking some admin tool might be needed to restore to the previous versions rather than someone going through and clicking undo in each case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment User @Kingofaces43: still assumes that I am vandal. @Koavf: I'm still treating like a vandal and this editor above is even trying to convince the admins to block me even if I contribute constructively and not violating 3RR rule! I'm shocked of accusation of edit warring too, and would like to ask admins to block the above accuser to participate in this debate!--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not calling you edits vandalism, but disruptive the way you are doing them. I mentioned the vandalism board because they often deal with mass edits done by users. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • @Mishae: I'm making this comment as an entirely uninvolved editor. I hope you understand what I am going to say. The issue isn't vandalism. If people are still using that word in the past few minutes, I apologize for them. It is not evident you are intending to harm Misplaced Pages. Still, good-faith edits can still be unproductive. The issue here, as I see it, is that the results of your actions (rather than the intent) is highly problematic. Multiple people are telling you "slow down and stop doing XXXX" If you keep doing XXXX, that's a problem, even if you mean well. When people say "Maybe you should stop doing that because you aren't doing it right", your best course of action is to listen to them and stop doing whatever it is you were doing wrong. The issue is not vandalism, so defending yourself against that is a non-starter: you wouldn't be blocked for vandalism per se, because this isn't a vandalism issue. However, saying that doesn't mean you won't be blocked. There's other reasons to be blocked besides vandalism and 3RR. You can also be blocked for repeatedly ignoring the good faith requests of others to stop some pattern of editing and discuss before continuing. When people say "Hey there, slow down because I think you're doing it wrong", and you just ignore them, that's also not good. Please listen to these other editors when they ask you to stop doing something, and politely ask them back why they wanted you to stop. They'll explain what you did wrong, and so long as you don't do it wrong again, we'll have no further problems. The issue here is that you've been told exactly that numerous times, and you simply ignore people and keep right on plowing through like a bull in a china shop. You need to heed when other people ask you to talk about things before continuing. Refusing to discuss the problems with your own editing is a still a major problem, even if it isn't vandalism. --Jayron32 04:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Mishae: You're treating me as a vandal? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Koavf: No. Why are you asking that?--Mishae (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
          • @Jayron32: and Koavf: I first would like to thank you both for understanding my condition. Since my condition prohibits me to understand stop or else such as explanation as you provided do help me a lot. I do however think that my edits were not in violation because Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules states that if a rule prevents you from improving an encyclopedia then ignore it. Meantime, Misplaced Pages:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time states that It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the article better regardless of what the rules say. And that was exactly what I did at WikiProject Insets talkpage. Yet despite numerous attempts only 7 editors showed up for discussion 3 of which said that they are against the change, 2 (including me) were in support, and the rest undecided. I proposed the idea to do a vote. That never happened (probably not yet).--Mishae (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
            • I find that statement confusing. "Stop or else" is a pretty unambiguous request. It does not need to be parsed for deeper meaning. Unlike the long, rambling diatribes I tend to write, if people say simple "Stop", then I don't see where that would be confusing. Simple statements like that should be more likely to generate a reaction from you, and not less. If you refuse to respond to simple, unambiguous requests, why would we think that more nuanced discussions would be within your ability to comprehend? Honestly, if the easy stuff doesn't get your attention, the more subtle, nuanced, longer discussions would not strike me as even worthwhile. Please also read WP:NOTTHERAPY. This encyclopedia doesn't exist to provide an outlet for any "condition". We're here to build articles, and while the community does have a tolerance for new users learning the ropes, ultimately the end results of your actions are all that matters. It matters not whether your bad editing is due to intent or inability, at some point the community is going to lose patience. "Conditions" don't make Misplaced Pages articles better. I have no idea what condition you have, and if I knew, It wouldn't change one iota of how I feel you should be treated. Misplaced Pages is about results, and whether your lack of good results is due to intent or lack of ability to produce them, matters not. Your condition may get you some bit of concessions from other aspects of your life, whether it is your schooling or your employer, but this is a volunteer service with an expressed mission, not a service with paid therapeutic staff who have the means to deal with "conditions." Whatever condition you have, I don't envy you for it, and if it causes you any amount of problems in your life, I can pray for that to cease. But it matters not if you simply can't produce good results after reasonable allowances for learning the rules around here. That's what WP:CIR means: ultimately, we need you to be able to learn to follow simple behavioral expectations. In the end it doesn't matter why you are, or aren't, following them. People are giving you clear, unambiguous instructions on how to do so. If you ignore them, you have nothing to blame except your own choices. (after you added additional text to your comment) Furthermore, IAR doesn't mean "do whatever you want" It says "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. People told you directly your actions weren't improving the encyclopedia. If you continue doing whatever you were doing, that's not ignoring rules. That's just being disruptive. --Jayron32 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
              • @Jayron32: How about you will stop tossing WP:NOTTHERAPY around here. I'm not saying that because I have a condition I can do whatever I want, I mentioned it because this is what prevents in communicating with people in general, including here. Yet, I would like to contribute, but seeing that majority of editors against me because of my disability (and I need to shut up about it too), are seeing me as a disruptive editor simply because I have difficulty communicating, makes me wonder if contributions are worthwhile to this site? I'm seeing that many editors live this project for various reasons, and new editors are hard to come by especially if you will continue to treat all of the editors like scum. This project was rewarding, and would have been more beneficial if not for this discrimination.--Mishae (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
                • Thank you for self-editing your original comment, Mishae. I'll not drag you over the coals for what you had originally said, which was beyond-the-pale. Still, not a single person is discriminating against you. Not one. Discrimination means we're treating you differently than we'd treat any other editor. We've not done that at all. We've given you due diligence, and indeed have spent an inordinate effort coddling you and explaining to you how to fix the problems you've been having. If saying "Hey' you should really listen when others say you may be doing something wrong" is discrimination, then you've just redefined that word in ways that I have never seen before, and we have nothing further to discuss, given that we clearly don't speak the same language. Vaya con dios, my friend, because no one here is apparently capable of helping you. --Jayron32 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Given the longterm evidence and the frustration of editors who have tried to engage with the editor, I'd say that a time-out (block) for reflection, of considerable length, is in order -- so that the editor learns to hear and respond. Sometimes the only cure for a long-term intransigent case of WP:IDHT is enforced longterm time away from the project. When they are allowed to return, then can see if the behavior persists or if they have learned to listen to and heed other editors and follow wiki protocols and gain consensus, etc. This seems to be a case of heedless headlong repeated disruptive behavior (mixed in with some content creation). Other people have attempted to address and resolve the problem behaviors in various instances and by other means, and it hasn't worked. Now needs the WP:CIR enforcement until corrected. Softlavender (talk)
  • @Softlavender: I will go on vacation in the end of April. The problem is is that Misplaced Pages have so many rules and guidelines that I just use Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules most of the time, because in my opinion it is applied to my edits. If its not, then for what it is used?--Mishae (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"The problem is is that Misplaced Pages have so many rules and guidelines that I just use Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules most of the time, because in my opinion it is applied to my edits. If its not, then for what it is used?" This is exactly why you should be blocked for WP:CIR. ADMINS: Now that we have a blatant admission that the user has no plans to either listen (much less respond) to other editors' input or to learn and/or abide by Misplaced Pages's policies, could we please get an indef WP:CIR block of this user (with WP:STANDARDOFFER)? Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Your screaming for a block is of no good intention. It sounds like I can't say anything. I need to assume that being normal in this case is being assertive and humiliating. I think Misplaced Pages is a site in disguise. It pretends to be a site that everyone can edit, yet everyone who edits it get blocked. It pretends to be a site that is inclusionistic, yet it bans every undesired editor and even shuts his mouth if problem arises. The founder of the project is not responsive either.--Mishae (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I overreacted with my above statements. What I was trying to say that people should take in considerations my good edits and I don't like when people scream for indefinite blocks without reading over my contributions. I wrote 3000 articles for this project, so I am definitely not a vandal that should be blocked indefinitely. I hope I will be forgiven.--Mishae (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Mishae: I misread this: "@Koavf: I'm still treating like a vandal..." I guess what you're saying is, "Koavf, I'm still being treated like a vandal". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems a shame that we have an editor anxious to contribute to the project, but does so in such a way that the results become a time-sink for other editors and, thus, a net negative for the project. I understand the CIR concerns, and maybe a block will be needed to make the point to Mishae that he really needs to listen and understand the advice people are offering. I honestly hope it need not come to that. Mishae, I realize that you may have disabilities which make it more difficult for you to communicate, but please try not to respond to other editors with hostility – most of the people commenting here are genuinely trying to help you, and to find a way for you to continue contributing to the project in a way that keeps your positive contributions, but eliminates (or at least minimizes) the negative side effects. Maybe someone(s) would be kind enough to offer to be a mentor to Mishae, or we could institute something akin to ARBCOM discretionary sanctions, whereby short slow–down blocks could be easily imposed on this user as needed. I think he at least deserves a little more WP:ROPE before an indef, but the fact he's continued to make the WikiProject Beetle for WikiProject Insect substitution makes me wonder why he wont stop digging. I dunno, the whole thing just makes me sad. Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Mojoworker: Its a shame that over the whole 15 years Misplaced Pages have not developed a single help line for such folks like who want to contribute here, but get misunderstood. Only after a specific editor with condition is being called vandal or troll or whatever unjustified name there is, and only after an AN/I discussion, do some editors realize what they have done. But frankly, majority of times they don't even feel sympathy or guilt if such editors get in trouble. Misplaced Pages is a good project, but it would have been better if editors would help such folks get on their feet rather than tossing WP:THERAPY. I'm not as problematic as people here assume me to be: I write and edit many articles (mostly archiving). And so far was awarded 20 awards for article creations, archiving, and welcoming of new users. I also used to have mentor who was @Koavf:. Unfortunately when trouble used to arrive, he was not there to help me, and he even don't have time for me now, despite coming back this April for his Justin Knapp day.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Block proposal

This has gone on long enough. The issues with Mishae are raised clearly above, and demonstrated further by this thread; while the subject of an AN/I discussion about your competence, it's a really bad idea to accuse other users of being bribed to disagree with you and perpetuate the edits that you have been repeatedly told are disruptive.

Mishae's response has been the aforementioned accusations and disruptive edits, and to state that his condition as an autistic person means that he is incapable of understanding "stop or else", and that the volume of rules on Misplaced Pages means he actively ignores them rather than read them.

I propose that:

1. Mishae be banned from editing Misplaced Pages for 1 months;
2. After this period, he should be allowed to return in an unrestricted fashion;
3. If the behaviour that has necessitated this thread continues to make itself known, we can discuss more indefinite sanctions.

I am sympathetic to the condition, and have myself had shrinks debate (in my younger years) whether I fit somewhere on the spectrum - but if it's an active block on understanding "please don't do this", well, that's a competence issue. And I am appreciative of Mishae's many contributions to the encyclopedia, but a large number of contributions does not permit someone to act as a drain on the enthusiasm and mindset of others without consequence. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I (obviously) support this ban. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would support a block, if that gets Mishae to engage in productive discussion, but 6 months seems excessive. He's been blocked several times, but looks like 48 hours was the longest and that was back in 2013 (a couple of indefs since then were reversed in about 15 minutes each). I'm hopeful that something like one or two weeks would be enough for him to reflect on the advice that's been offered him and take it to heart, get on the WP:CLUETRAIN, and cease lame IAR type arguments that fit his preferred outcome. I'd support a provision for a quick jump to the 6 month ban if problematic behavior continues. As I said above, the whole thing makes me sad. Mojoworker (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  1 month? Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this ban because Ironholds did not disclose the fact that Kingofspades was not exactly an angel towards Mishae. Calling Mishae a vandal more than once was rude and I understand how that would make any editor unhappy. It should have been mentioned by Ironholds in this thread but it wasnt. I also get a bad vibe from the whole thing and therefore I oppose. Caden 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, I linked the diff in which the vandalism comment came up, and made mention of it. I'm not really getting the nature of your oppose, I'm afraid; this is not to do with that specific example, it is to do with a broader pattern of behaviour that is extensively documented here, both through diffs and the nature of Mishae's responses. Can you expand on what you mean by "bad vibe"? Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly in this thread here did you mention that Kingoffaces was rude to Mishae? The link you gave doesnt show you saying that. Caden 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

...no, the link is a link to the diff of Kingoffaces referencing vandalism. As my message says. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, once again, where in this ANI report that you filed do you mention that kingoffaces was rude or unkind or uncivil or whatever towards mishae? Your dif is a dif posted by kingoffaces that does not answer my question about you. Caden 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, but then, I suspect you know that. I probably should've listed it, yes, but I have some expectation that people will do research prior to making decisions about users' editing permissions, so... I'd still like to know what you think of the rest of the situation, or what you mean by "bad vibe", if you've got the time. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you should of listed it on ANI but you chose not to. Because of that I oppose. What I mean by a bad vibe is based on a gut feeling. I never ignore it and always listen to it. Caden 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just telling you that it's time to eat. BMK (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarcastic Ken? Now, you know what you can do with that, right? Caden 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm.... sauté it in a little butter and serve it with a fresh green salad? BMK (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever Barbie. Time to dye that fake hair of yours brown and drop the dumb blonde act. Caden 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Hair"? Oh, yeah I remember that with great fondness. BMK (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't actually address any of the rest of the ANI post, but alright. I'll remember that for the future; "any oversight which could've been corrected by the objecting user at any point in a multi-day discussion should instead be held in reserve as a rationale to oppose, rather than being used to actually inform the conversation".Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you could take the time to say on ANI that Mishae called kingoffaces a "troll" well then you could of taken the time to say that kingoffaces was basically calling him a vandal. Keeping things to make one editor look better than another is never a good idea. Thats what you did here as far as i'm concerned. Caden 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Caden: did you just accuse me of deliberately fabricating or twisting evidence to bias the conversation? Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not. Caden 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like, then, either an explanation of what you mean by " Keeping things to make one editor look better than another is never a good idea. Thats what you did here as far as i'm concerned." or a correction. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't ever called Mishae a vandal. I've referenced that some could consider such widespread edits without consensus after repeated warnings vandalism-like (needing the same tools to address the large number of edits, etc.), so my warnings were intended to alert them to that. I've been pretty respectful during the whole process while tolerating a lot of incivility. I can't pick out anything where I would specifically be unkind or rude in my posts, but there is also a difference between one user being rude and another taking offense. The degree at which the latter is occurring here seems to be the primary issue. If an editor can't approach another civilly about an issue without backlash like this, it's a problem. I have been considering the behavior highly disruptive though. It's a very strange case that is not vandalism, but my asking about the vandalism noticeboard was related to how to deal with the widespread edits since those folks deal with that in actual vandalism cases as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You didnt need to say it. You referencing it said it for you. It speaks volumes and it left Mishae believing you were calling him a vandal and that's the impression I got too. My mind is made up and it aint changing. I still oppose. Caden 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved non admin) A month off to learn more of the rules and procedures sounds about right. If Mishae could find a mentor perhaps the block can be lifted. But that would take Mishae agreeing to follow what the mentor said. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  I'm the one who's been mentoring him, and I opened the discussion :/. Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm open for mentorship with @Ironholds: after the expiration of a block, but I guess he wont take this offer kindly since I already wore out his patience.--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You guess correctly. I don't deal with people who are either anti-Semitic or, more probably, contemptibly lacking in any sense of proportion, decency or empathy. Pick whichever you feel best applies to you. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support block of at least one month; more if the behaviors persist. The user shows no sign that they understand they have done anything wrong or that they will change their ways -- this cannot be allowed to persist. It seems the only way forward is a block of at least one month. If that doesn't have an effect, then an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Frankly, a block for a month will turn out to be useless, as this editor is obviously incapable of understanding the rules of this place, and the social mechanisms that make it (barely) work. He will ultimately have to be indef blocked per WP:CIR. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:ROPE (a somewhat ironic combination), a block for a month is a reasonable first step. BMK (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree so too to these terms. One month will be enough for me to read and understand basic stuff, plus I really needed a break, and should have asked for selfblock instead of this. In the mean time, is it possible for someone to give me their Skype number so that I can use to ask him/her about such and such guideline? Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support I had never interacted with this user before yesterday. I tried counseling them and advising them on how to avoid the problems they are having. Within a few hours, I got called a Nazi twice (redacted the first time, allowed to stand the second). I'm washing my hands of this. --Jayron32 00:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jayron32: Firstly, I didn't called you a Nazi in particular, nor koavf, :) I called certain actions by some users of this discussion though that way. There is a difference. When people scream for a block, that to me is identical to the Nazi junta yelling all Jews must be gassed. So to me, being blocked is same way as being killed, especially when it comes to being blocked indefinitely. I hope I made it clear now? If you got offended by it, I am sorry, didn't ment to hurt your feelings. I supposed to have spaced that so that it will not be assumed that I called you that. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mishae, you've certainly fulfilled Godwin's Law here. This situation has come about entirely due to your own doing. You have been repeatedly told "stop your disruptive behaviors or else", and you have consistently replied that you do not (or refuse to) understand "stop or else", and so this block is the "or else". It seems like from your attitude that even the one-month block is not going to be effective, and that you will eventually be indefinitely blocked. If you would like to avoid that fate, then cease your self-justifications and promise to stop when experienced editors tell you to stop. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: But it could have ended up as civil discussion if you wouldn't have screamed for indefinite block.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I should have told you all that earlier but my gnomish edits were careless due to an adware in my startup which reoccurs often and I don't know why. Despite numerous of removal it comes back every 3 days. Hopefully this nuisance would be addressed in the future discussions.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what?! I missed Mishae's comment, it seems. Because if I'd heard that he was comparing being blocked to being killed as part of a genocidal campaign by racist authoritarian dictators I would have pushed for an indefinite block from the get-go. In fact, can someone explain why Mishae is not currently blocked for that? Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think you need to read above comment. More over, what's so bad about this comparison, if that was my feeling at first? After you make this comment, please understand that Misplaced Pages is not a dictatorship (although its not democracy either). O.K. Is it because you are part Jewish you took offence to it (I seen you photograph, no offence?)? If so, it was just my view of user Softlavender comments, nothing more, nothing less. Like really, having a gag in my mouth is identical top Nazism, sand your comment is another gag, therefore I wont apologize. I compared users' actions not users themselves. Is that clear? I don't see anything wrong in my POV.--Mishae (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Did I take offence to it because I'm partially Jewish, as evidenced by how I look?! What the HELL do you think you're doing making those kinds of comments about other users and making those kinds of comparisons? Alright, this is a moot discussion. Congratulations; with your attitude and interventions, you've successfully progressed from being blocked for being actively incompetent to being blocked for being an actively incompetent racist. Enjoy your mandatory, all-expenses-paid vacation. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone tell him to not remove people's talkpage comments just because he thinks it's a BLP violation?

I reverted his asshole move and added a citation showing the problem with Curry's lack of understanding of statistics in that regard.

jps (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that you issued a blanket putdown of a living person, I'd say Quest was right in removing it. BLP violations are not allowed on talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:BLPTALK seems to say that it applies to unsourced or poorly sourced claims. Are you saying my source isn't good? jps (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, weren't you banned from ANI, Bugs? jps (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. BMK (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Shame, that. jps (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A year or two ago, I was asked to cut back here, which I have. You, I've never heard of before, and given your gratuitous attack, I'd just as soon it had stayed that way. As to the actual issue, it was unsourced, i.e. no better than one editor's personal opinion. If he's provided a valid source, that could be different. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bugs: He was "Science Apologist" (and a bunch of other names, not all of which are on this list, apparently. BMK (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do recall that user ID, though I don't recall being on his enemies list. I'll just take it as an April 1 joke. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Has Misplaced Pages really fallen so low as to say that editors cannot add opinions about living people to talkpages unless they're positive? Even if these opinions are verifiably held by reliable sources and they are directly relevant to issues of accuracy and fact associated with claims. On the talkpage? Has BLP zealotry become the orthodox faith of this website? jps (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It was unsourced. If you've sourced it now, you're on firmer ground. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What BLP violation? Caden 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's one thing to say "X is a child molester" or to post unverified blog material alleging that, and another to say "X doesn't understand Y." I see no BLP issue here. This looks more like an effort to censor discussion. Refactoring talk pages should be done with caution. Coretheapple (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's an unsourced negative statement about a living person, absolutely a WP:BLP violation. Don't call people assholes who are enforcing policy. Actually, don't do that at all. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Discussion of sources would be totally crippled if people questioning sources were constantly being refactored on the basis of trumped-up BLP issues. Coretheapple (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no BLP violation here, but I can see how it could be perceived as such. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this one of the April Fool's threads? I think I'm pretty strict on BLP issues, and criticizing the quality of someone's scholarship is not a BLP violation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is a violation, when it's done without a source. The refactoring was proper. When it was added back with a source, that was also fine. Ivanvector (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is not an article. This is a talk page. jps (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's do a little experiment: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things." Is that a BLP violation?

Now: "Tony Abbot has said stupid things. " Is that now suddenly NOT a BLP violation?

Do you see the silliness of what your position is? (Is that a BLP violation against Ivanvector since I didn't cite a source that said that "Ivanvector says silly things"?) Sheesh!

jps (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Ok but While "x says silly things" is not a BLP violation. "SPACKlick is incompetent at his job", "SPACKlick is unqualified for his job" or "SPACKlick doesn't understand something he earns money claiming skill at" is closer to the mark and should be blanked if remotely controversial (guess this could count as evidence for some of my claims, I'm at my job right now arguing pedantries of policy on wikipedia) it should be blanked pending source. SPACKlick (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"If *remotely* controversial"? I can understand that argument for articlespace which are visible to Google and the like, but a talkpage? Seriously, what possible reasons for that are there? Is a comment on a Misplaced Pages talkpage in context of a broader discussion really what we should be policing in such a fashion? jps (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that there's a big difference between a talk page and a wikipedia article. No doubt it was potentially offensive, but I can think of many worse things that have been said about real people on talk pages, and if we were to set out to remove even 1% of them, it would be very difficult to operate. It does look to me like the comment was removed in an attempt to win the argument by censoring the opposition.Deb (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think that talk pages of BLPs on occasion need to be refactored and even oversighted but only in clearcut instances. In the past I have seen situations in which BLP has been used in very much this fashion, as a cudgel, abusing and twisting the purpose of BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What cudgel you blank the comment <Courtesy blanked possible BLP Violation pending source> If it's valid comment a source can be found if not it remains blanked. That way wikipedia retains no liability for accidental libel. Where's the real harm in a slightly cautious approach? SPACKlick (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, perhaps I'm taking a very literal and blunt interpretation of the policy, but it does say that it applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages (which includes user pages, talk pages, drafts, etc. that are not normally reader-accessible) - it's the first sentence of the policy. Any statement about a living person that is contentious must be backed up by a reliable source wherever it appears. If someone reverted then it's contentious. I don't see how this hampers discussion at all: if someone posts a source to a talk page so that editors can discuss its meaning and proper place in the article, there shouldn't be any reason to revert, unless someone takes an unduly contentious interpretation of the source or blatantly misrepresents it. While I agree it seems that AQ4K did so under the veil of the policy in order to censor their opponent, they were technically correct. But that brings to mind wikilaywering and is disruptive in and of itself.

Also, according to how I interpret the policy, calling my position silly is not a BLP violation because you attacked my position, not me personally; it falls under WP:V but not WP:BLP. Saying that I say silly things would violate the policy, but that statement is neither contentious nor unverifiable. Ivanvector (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not having to crystal-ball and dig through history what the editor actually said, perhaps? Avoiding subjective reasoning on border cases, which leads to bad blood and disruption, just as in this case? Yeah, egregious BLP violations should be blanked, but this one does not even come close. It would be impossible to even discuss many things if this kind of BLP zealotry is applied (and, apparently in this case, abused). The same principle as for WP:RUC should be applied: one should have no business in editing substance in other people's talk page comments, except in the worst cases. No such user (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides, if we're taking "very literal" interpretations: WP:BLPTALK says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed (bold mine). Jps's remark was obviously aimed at making a content choice, i.e. suitability of the source. While his choice of words was slightly too blunt, making an opinion does not come close to a libel. No such user (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I accept your point regarding WP:BLPTALK and I'll consider this in the future. However, publishing a false statement intended to bring disrepute on the subject of it is basically the definition of libel. Jps didn't say "in my opinion ..." (and shouldn't), they stated "it's well understood that ...". Personally, I would not have reverted that statement, but not being familiar with the topic I would have asked for a source for that statement. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But reading the discussion, it's plain that the purpose was to make content choices. BLPTALK definitely is not to be abused but it wasn't in this instance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a community ban on User:Sandbox for user warnings.

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

First warned in 2008 , this user is a persistent threat to the encyclopedia. Racking up hundreds, even thousands of warnings over 7 entire years of vandalism, User:Sandbox for user warnings needs to be immediately community banned for life. As you can see at Special:Contributions/Sandbox for user warnings, this editor is a vandalism only account, with absolutely zero productive edits to mainspace, while having hundreds of warnings! Ban this editor immediately, as User:Sandbox for user warnings has done absolutely nothing worthwhile for the encyclopedia. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't these jokes ever get old? --Jayron32 02:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have piped it like this: Jimbo Wales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I can't tell you how many times I've had to warn this user to stop warning users. I have also had to warn other users to stop warning this user to stop warning users. bd2412 T 03:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I'm confused; the user had warnings on his/her talk page as recently as yesterday, but his/her contribution history shows no edits since 2008. Has s/he been editing under a different account or something? Erpert 06:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Judging from the user's talk page, I can't think of a Misplaced Pages policy this user hasn't broken multiple times, just by existing... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose and propose closing this request immediately. This is just a joke that no one is going to believe. McDonald of Kindness 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• April Fool's is over. Please, next year, do something more creative like filing a RfA for Jimbo Wheels or nominating some high-traffic article for deletion. Epic Genius (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Qewr4231

This is the second time I'm bringing Qewr4231 to ANI. The first time I brought him is here, but the user was brought to ANI in 2010 for basically the same stuff: crusading against the International Churches of Christ. The user is a self-proclaimed former member of the Kip McKean church(es). He has been on a mission, since at least 2010, to add content to the article about the alleged cult status of the church and derivative churches. This might be a reasonable endeavor, except the user has had tremendous difficulty understanding numerous explanations of what constitutes a reliable source, he has been resistant to any idea contrary to his own POV, he has dominated talk pages related to this subject with lengthy, often incoherent, and tangential diatribes, more recently dumping a litany of links, and he seems more interested in soapboxing than actually pitching constructive changes consistent with existing editing standards. As the most recent "final straw" the user made this edit where he finds it suitable to out McKean's place of residence by linking to a real estate site that basically outs McKean's home address, apparently unaware that there might be privacy considerations for living persons. I've attempted to get other eyes on the articles from WikiProject Christianity for impartial participation from WikiProject Christianity but have not had any success. I'm at the point where I think a topic ban is the way to go. The pages typically affected are Talk:International Churches of Christ, Talk:Kip McKean, Talk:International Christian Church. The user has taken to crossposting the same general content to these pages and using the discussion pages as sandboxes or something. It is worth poking through the archives as well for scope. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Links: Qewr4231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I participated in editing the Kip Mckean page. I added information about where Kip Mckean lives. Kip Mckean lives in a $650,000 condo in an expensive part of Los Angeles. I used two reliable sources. Source #1 proves that Kip Mckean owns a $650,000 condo Source #2 is also a reliable source. This is the company that sells and manages the condos Qewr4231 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Kip Mckean is not a private figure. Kip Mckean is a public figure with a public website: www.kipmckean.com. I was merely adding information about Kip Mckean that is public information. Anyone can look up these records if they want to. They are public records. I'm not giving out private information. I'm giving out information that is public and available for anyone to look up and view. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The condo management association is a public website that anyone can view . The information from Los Angeles Block Shopper is a public records website that anyone can view and use to search for properties . These are public websites. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can you please get Cyphoidbomb to stop harassing me? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Quite apart from clear violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY, the first cite does not show an unambiguous reference to Kip McKean, and the second demonstrates WP:SYNTHESIS. And given Qewr4231's past edits it's also pretty clearly a case of WP:SPA and WP:SOAP. --Escape Orbit 16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I will additionally note that in the edit in question here Qewr points to the main page of the condo management website (which doesn't contain any data) instead of a subpage, to support his calculations for what McKean must be paying in property tax. This raises the rhetorical questions: why do we care what McKean pays in property tax? How is that relevant in a biography, and what is the precedent for the inclusion of this information? This underscores my point that the user has trouble understanding what does and does not warrant inclusion in a biography, and that his judgment may be clouded by his anti-McKean agenda. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some new recent edits have popped up at Kip McKean by IP 146.23.3.250. Based on the IP's lack of technical and grammatical proficiency, as well as the clear attempts to besmirch the subject by making unsourced, and unprovable statements like "While McKean self-refers to himself as having a doctorate, no documentation of such a degree having been bestowed upon him appear to exist", I suspect this is Qewr editing while logged out. . This edit is very similar in focus to the one about property taxes made by Qewr as noted above.

108.218.237.195 is me. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ministers should not become rich being ministers. Kip Mckean is doing what Jim Baker and other frauds did. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A person's income and net worth shows what kind of lifestyle they live/lived. A person's income also gives readers an insight into what kind of person this is. I bet Donald Trump's (or anyone else that makes a lot of money) income is listed on his wikipedia page. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

More soapboxing. There is no law prohibiting ministers from becoming rich. You should be hassling the church with your opinions, not Misplaced Pages. Divulging where Kip McKean lives is not in the interest of this project. Donald Trump's net worth is sourced through Forbes, not cobbled together from original research scraps about how much McKean's condo may or may not be worth and speculation about how much he paid in property taxes. Thank you for taking ownership of the edits made by 108.218.237.195. I can't help but notice that the other IP, 146.23.3.250 geolocates about 16 miles from where your IP geolocates. Someone you know? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

JoeM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Misplaced Pages that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Misplaced Pages as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. They do not even understand the basics, and are brainwashed/too emotionally connected with these topics to edit sensibly. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  I might consider restricting the ban to main space if the user adheres to his comment below and if others agree. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question: at his block log I see only "17:58, 22 July 2005 Angela unblocked JoeM (Jimbo has unbanned JoeM. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026676.html)" Where can I see the original block and any discussion explaining the reason for the block? Also, what's up with Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of JoeM? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban at this time, based on JoeM's response below. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Response

I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Misplaced Pages exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Misplaced Pages's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

The community forbids the editor, JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this time based on JoeM's response above, which essentially seems to be a voluntary topic ban for an unspecified period. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Misplaced Pages have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Block review

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

Could someone please take a look at this block of mine (of User:Magog the Ogre) for personal attacks (see User talk:Magog the Ogre#Comment at AE. I've revision deleted the attack as it seemed quite egregious (so admins only sorry, ). The main reason I'm asking for a review is that it's a long term user and I want to make sure others agree on the seriousness (including if someone thinks it might have been a good faith joke/metaphor etc). If there is agreement that either the block or revdel isn't appropriate please feel free to lift/remove. (I might not be available for a few hours, but I'll try to check in). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was equally aghast when I first saw the comment in question. The circumstances (long-term user and admin, clean block log) seem to favor a redact + warning, but the (IMO) comment itself is severely insidious enough that my own kneejerk reaction would'e also been RevDel + block. Unless it's a really shitty metaphor that went waaaay over my head, I think the block is absolutely appropriate, and so will be the unblock-request-with-apologies I'm hoping we'll be able to accept soon. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As per Fut.Perf's enlightening comment, I did indeed miss the reference entirely -- I wasn't familiar with this apparently common analogy for a loaded question. I still think it's kind of a shitty way to make one's point, but y'know, to each their own arguments. Apologies to Magog for jumping to conclusions but I'm actually glad to be wrong in this case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? What's the problem here? The "have you stopped beating your wife yet" part? People, come oooon. That's not "a really shitty metaphor"; it's obviously the well-known standard example of a loaded question, clearly being used rhetorically/sarcastically. It is plainly obvious that Magog wasn't literally accusing Zero of beating his wife; he was merely charging him with using implicit presuppositions in a misleading way in his own statement. Come on, people, everybody can see this. I've seen this precise sentence used dozens and dozens of times used in exactly this rhetorical way in Wikipedian discussions for just this purpose . Completely harmless statement; very bad block. Please unblock immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you FPAS for confirming the content of rev-deleted diff, we have also got a redirect called, Do you still beat your wife. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Future Prefect, I've unblocked, never heard it used like that before. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Among native English speakers, that's pretty much the only way it's used, nowadays at least. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A comment from the guy who may or may not have finished beating his wife: Future Perfect is correct about the meaning of the expression and I understood it that way. I thought that Magog's reply was unnecessarily rude, but I can take some rudeness and would have argued against the block if I'd seen it before it was undone. I might hold the record for surviving in the Middle East part of Misplaced Pages (over 13 years, almost 11 as admin), from which you can infer that I don't have a thin skin.Zero 09:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon leaving inappropriate Talk templates, WP:BITE

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

Warning: This is such a stupid editing dispute one would think this was an April Fools prank. I am a long-time anonymous editor who has recently created this account due to a new work situation. Recently, I made what seems to be the egregious mistake (in John's eyes) of copy-editing the Marquette, Michigan article to remove a particularly ludicrous statement ("Summers are warm, with the warmest months, July and August, each averaging 66.6 °F" - 66.6F being in no way what the average person would consider "warm"). John responded with a blind reversion and subsequent inappropriate templating (note that my edit, changing "warm" to "warmer", was correcting unsourced information, and given that the preceeding paragraph details the winter climate, saying "warmER" can probably slide without a citation without running too far afoul of WP:SYNTH). I undid his reversion, and left a curtly worded talk message of my own. He then jumped to a Warning: Edit Warring twinkle-spam. His most recent contribution to my Talk page (after re-reverting my edit, this time under the auspices of bad grammar) is bordering on the incoherent. Frankly, at this point I'm at a loss for what to do, as he is clearly not even reading the article - I suspect all he sees is "red userpage newbie", and I am in no state to work with him on this increasingly-idiotic dispute. If the residents of AN/I deem "66.6F" to be "warm", then so be it. Otherwise, can someone please tell him to back off, and refrain from gunking up my Talk page with inappropriate nonsense templates? Thanks, Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, Darla Vise-Eye, that this is a routine content dispute unworthy of any administrative action. As for your assertion that it is "ludricrous" to call an average temperature of 66.6 °F as "warm", I have to disagree with you. If that's the average, it will be a bit hotter during the day and a bit cooler at night. That's not hot weather and that's not cold weather, so "warm" seems just right to me. So why call it "ludricous"? Or is this an April Fool's joke? If so, it isn't very funny. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

First, if you are not a newbie, bite does not apply. you have made no effort at discussion, and your initial message to me was a personal attack, not the first from the look of your talk page. this is not the place for a content dispute, but substituting warmer is poor grammar. summer is warmer than winter by definition. and as Cullen pointed out, yes average temps in the 60s is quite warm. I'm more than happy to stay off your talk page as long as you don't continue to make poor edits on articles I follow. if you do, I will template you. and if you continue with all the snark you've been spewing, I'm pretty sure you'll find your way back here again. it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

it's worth noting that the OP only has one edit so far that was not reverted. - It's worth noting that User:John from Idegon can't tell the difference between the "current" tag and a revert. The only edit of mine that has been reverted is the one detailed above. Furthermore: Go fuck yourself, John. Someone please ban me indef - I can put up with people like John making mistakes (the very fact that he's reverted me for three completely different reasons shows he's taking a shotgun approach to an article he WP:OWNs), and I can put up with people like John being snarky, but I can't deal with both. Now I'm remembering why my own edits tapered off - no surprise Misplaced Pages's editing traffic has been on the decline for months, what a toxic, insufferable culture. Of course all my edits have been reverted, John - you're the one who reverted them. And lmao, 66F is not at all warm. The year-round average temperature of the entire planet, including barely-inhabited shitholes like Antarctica and Greenland, is 58F. Considering the places actually inhabited by humanity, 66F is not a warm summertime temperature by any means, you brain-addled cretin. This isn't at all about content - this is about editors like John creating an absolutely frustrating and insufferably toxic editing culture because they'd rather spam a random Twinkle template than actually discuss whatever their issue is. Darla Vise-Eye (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Darla Vise-Eye's self-proposed indef ban, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NPA. This is ridiculous. For what it's worth, ASHRAE defines acceptable indoor temperatures as 68-74°F winter, 73-79°F summer (). Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• When I was young, the lady next door called 60ºF "tee-shirt weather", and it wasn't just because of her personal preference: everyone started wearing light clothing. We all have our own ideas of how different temperatures feel... but that's all a matter of a content dispute. This is a clear WP:BOOMERANG situation; thread should be closed, OP should be warned or temporarily blocked. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, that's because you lived in a cold climate and were acclimated to it. In a tropical environment like Hawaii, you become acclimated to the heat. As a result, 60ºF is heavy parka, gloves, wool hat, and scarf weather for us. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Stolen pieces of Misplaced Pages logo

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

I note that at least three, and possibly four, pieces of the logo are missing, including on this very page. I haven't been able to identify the culprits, but must insist that they be community banned (if they aren't too good of content contributors to ban, of course). Any help or advice with this matter would be appreciated. It makes the site look bad to be unable to recover the missing pieces. Pakaran 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have them. I borrowed them a while back and forgot to return them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Pretty bold to confess that here, Skame. That's like wearing red and standing in front of the bull wiggling your bottom. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

oh, I fully intend on returning them as soon as I find out where the cat has hidden them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser

Editor making bulk changes against consensus

Serpren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has for some time been making bulk changes to UK placenames. I informed him on his talk page that per this consensus, it's very clear that bulk changes of this type should cease. This was in many cases mopped up by an admin (User:Redrose64), but Serpren has continued. I reverted him in a number of cases, but he has just reverted back.

This consensus was designed to stop this kind of thing, i.e. editors changing UK placenames to suit their own preference, for example removing "UK" or adding it, or swapping "UK" for "England" and vice versa. There's no consensus on which format to use and it is unconstructive to keep switching between them. I have encountered several editors engaging in this practice (usually adding or removing "UK") and showing them the consensus has always stopped them, until now.

Please advise on how to resolve this, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I now see he actually reported me for vandalism although it's not showing on that page. He did not notify me of this report and even accused me of editing "for political motivations", a clear violation of WP:AGF, let alone being utterly wrong. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus Bretonbanquet refers to is "no consensus" as to style (therefore no mandate for bulk changes). However it does refer back to an earlier discussion and straw poll which showed a split consensus (once socks and meatpuppets were removed) between "England, UK/United Kingdom" and "England" (and similarly for Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) in geography leads. (In both discussions it was widely stated by those who usually know about these things that using both the home country and UK was redundant.) Consequently Serpren has some grounds for making their changes, though they would be well advised to stop and seek fresh consensus, since the strawpoll was a long time ago, and not well attended. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Yes, as you say, the straw poll is from 2006 and consensus was split. The 2014 discussion to which I linked above also found no consensus as to style and that bulk changes shouldn't be made. This is my complaint; that Serpren is not abiding by that. Nearly all of his edits are changes of this type. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If I may add, Serpren's haste to make these changes has introduced geographic or grammatical errors into at least a couple of articles ( ). Being so eager to add their bulk changes that they fail to spot any collateral damage is a fairly good indicator that their intentions are not necessarily honourable. QueenCake (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the consensus was "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and have been assiduously working to ensure conformity across Cornish pages. However, should the consensus be "England, UK/United Kingdom" or "England", I will happily stick with that. My profound apologies for any grammatical errors I have caused, that was certainly not my intent. Maybe an adjudication, or new consensus, could be reached? Serpren (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You say that, but at no stage have you been applying this convention of "Cornwall, England, UK" to pages that say "Cornwall, England". You've only been changing pages which say "Cornwall, UK". Perhaps you could explain why that's the case. The consensus you're talking about is here, but as it says, "Although no-one actively changes articles that don't comply with this format unless making other substantive edits to the article, members of the Cornwall Wikiproject do ensure that where it has been used, it remains in place." In other words, and combined with the other consensus about not making bulk changes to UK placenames, don't change the placenames unless you're making other substantive edits to the article. There is no consensus to enforce this placename format across all Cornish articles, particularly as you're being somewhat selective in your choice of articles to change.

There's also the point about inappropriate use of "Cornwall, England, UK" when the sentence already mentions England or the UK, or "English" or "British". That just amounts to repetition and makes the sentence read very poorly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well where I have added "England" inappropriately, you should feel free to edit it. However, I can see no refutation that the agreed consensus is the term "Cornwall, England, UK/United Kingdom" and will continue to add England where it is deserved/needed Serpren (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

I will. So you are saying that you will ignore the consensus about not making bulk changes and you admit to openly editing against that consensus. You also ignore the point in the guideline about the "Cornwall, England, UK" consensus not being enforced unless making other substantive edits to the article, and you also ignore my question as to why you do not add "UK" to articles that say "Cornwall, England" in your supposed quest to fulfil this consensus. At the risk of failing WP:AGF, that looks very much like editing with a political POV, quite apart from editing against one consensus to wrongly enforce another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a potentially-unlimited number of beneficial edits that a user could choose to make to Misplaced Pages. However, Serpren has elected to spend months making the same unhelpful edit to hundreds of pages, ignoring all opposition, frequently damaging the flow of a page's prose in order to stamp "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" repeatedly.
It would be naïve to the point of foolishness to assume good faith when a user is so devoted to deliberate disruption and announces his intentions to carry on causing further disorder. Surely a block on the editor is justified to prevent further wilful disturbance of the project. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This single-purpose editor continues making controversial edits against consensus, at some considerable rate. He freely admits that he's going to keep doing it, regardless of what anyone says. Is any admin going to say anything at all? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that User:Serpren be blocked for disruption unless he will agree to stop making mass changes regarding England and the UK. A 2014 discussion found "No consensus for mass changes, and bulk changes of articles should cease." It appears that Serpren intends to violate that decision by continuing to make mass changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, admins – sorry I had to repost the whole thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: I didn't read the whole thing, but I am curious if we can establish one revert per 24 hours rule on England and U.K. articles, in case if that user will start to revert as well. We already have this rule in place for WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Ukraine.--Mishae (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: That's a good idea. Hopefully it won't come to that, but it's certainly worth considering if the problem continues. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving matter at User:Proxima Centauri's talk page

After Proxima Centauri made this edit (which I reverted) to the Murder article, I decided to look into his talk page edit history because I remembered interacting with him before and that he'd received a lot of warnings for inappropriate editing; I wanted to see if he'd gotten any recent warnings. To my surprise, his talk page edit history has been mangled because he archives that edit history to a talk page archive by using WP:Move; see here and here, for examples. I've never seen archiving like that (if I have I don't remember it or I didn't pay much attention to it before), and I view this as problematic because archives, which are WP:Subpages, can be deleted. Along with them, would be Proxima Centauri's talk page edit history, which documents his past problematic editing. If he did that knowing it would make his talk page edit history such a mess, I have to state that it's ingenious. That talk page edit history should be combined, not disjointed, not made so that it is complicated tracking down that past history. NeilN, for example, is no longer shown in his talk page edit history even though he has commented on his talk page before. I think I've commented on his talk page before; I currently can't be sure; I scanned through his archives to see if I have, but maybe I overlooked something. Or maybe he deleted what I stated there, and that edit history no longer shows up because he archived what was currently on his talk page. This is what his talk page edit history looks like now. I think that one of the WP:Moves also caused his user page/talk page (or maybe just the talk if that's possible) to be taken off my WP:Watchlist; I don't remember de-watching his talk page. I would use the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool to track down my interaction with Proxima Centauri, but it's currently not working.

Would a WP:Administrator be willing to WP:Histmerge these edit histories? Proxima Centauri can obviously be informed on how to appropriately WP:Archive. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure this is against policy as I've seen other experienced editors archive this way but it makes looking at history a real pain in the neck. --NeilN 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that the archiving was done in this exact way with those other editors? I view it as highly problematic in the case of problematic editors, for reasons I've stated above. And now I again remember my interaction with this editor; it concerned the Homosexuality article. I remembered this weeks ago when his username popped up; see Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 23#Edit reverted on evolution and User talk:Proxima Centauri/Archive 4#personal attack in Homosexuality article talk. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, look at RHaworth. Searching is bit easier since they have a search field but the talk page history is gone. --NeilN 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not required for editors to archive their user talk page content. I know some long-standing editors who simply delete comments once they are read.

I've run into the same problem though. I KNOW I've made comments on some talk pages but when I've looked for them months later, they are absent from the talk page history. I even asked an admin to see if they had been deleted but no, they just don't show up. Liz 21:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

: Liz, per above, it is the talk page edit history that I am focusing on. And in the case of this type of archiving, that editor's talk page edit history can be deleted.

NeilN, I feel that regarding WP:OWNTALK, which is currently clear about the importance of talk page edit histories and that user talk pages are almost never deleted, I need to propose some new language at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines to address this type of archiving. If an editor requests that their archives be deleted, it is unlikely that the WP:Administrator will check to see if all of that editor's talk page edit history is combined with those archives. By the way, the reason that I knew you'd commented at Proxima Centauri's talk page is because I saw you in Proxima Centauri user page edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no good whatsoever coming out of disjointed talk page edit histories of this type. For one, it makes searching difficult. For two, editors can have their talk page edit histories deleted, which is usually a no-no. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 6) Not that I think any of this is done in bad faith, I think perhaps it's time we made a policy about this. WP:OWNTALK indicates that users may remove and/or archive notices and other conversations from their own talk page, saying "conversations can always be retrieved from the page history", but if the page is being moved to an archive subpage then the history is fragmented, meaning that even with an archive search like RHaworth's, it would make it necessary to scour the revision histories of multiple pages to find a notice that might have been removed either before or after archiving, unless you knew exactly where to look, and that could fairly easily be abused to conceal past misdeeds (again, not that I think anyone here has that in mind). For what it's worth, I don't seem to have the same de-watching problem that Flyer22 observed; I watch RHaworth's talk and was not affected by his recent archiving of the page, though he could be using admin tools to pull that off. Ivanvector (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• See Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures; this is described as an increasingly uncommon approach, but until fairly recently was explicitly listed at WP:ARCHIVE as an acceptable way to archive a user talk page. I know of several long-term editors who still archive this way. The subpages do not qualify for speedy deletion. If their talk page was on your watchlist, then the archive remains on your watchlist after the move, and the new talk page will be watchlisted too. If you edited their talk page, your edit remains in the history of the archived page, and still shows in your contributions. There are advantages and disadvantages to all archiving methods, and this does have some advantages. I don't really like how it works myself, but it is not against policy or guideline. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector and Floquenbeam, thanks for weighing in. Per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I still think that this way of archiving is problematic and we need to reexamine its acceptability and state something about this at WP:Talk and WP:Move. Floquenbeam, I did not mention WP:Speedy deletion; I simply mentioned deletion. I stated above, "If an editor requests that their archives be deleted, it is unlikely that the WP:Administrator will check to see if all of that editor's talk page edit history is combined with those archives." Do you think that's not not likely to happen? I cannot help but think that it is likely to happen. I've seen something like it happen in the case of Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs), a WP:Sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Benjiboi; see this section. That WP:Administrators can see/retrieve the content is not the point; the vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors are not WP:Administrators. As for the de-watching matter, perhaps I accidentally took that page of my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Sportfan5000, though, User talk:Sportfan5000/BLPlist was deleted by Tokyogirl79 at "06:48, 22 March 2014" because it was the "talk page of a deleted page." So not quite the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think accidentally deleting talk page archives is possible in a vanishingly small number of cases, and if it does happen, we can undelete when we realize. Not worth messing up lots of other people's archiving systems that have been used for years (how, for example, would you suggest that current archives be "fixed"?) I understand the frustration with the history being a patchwork, but again, this is a manageable problem, not worth the disruption to others. At the very least (and I am not supporting this) if we decide this is no longer an "approved" method, we should grandfather in everyone doing it already. Interesting note: a case could be made that copy/paste archiving violates licensing... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of "accidentally deleting talk page archives"; I'm speaking of deleting talk page edit histories along with the archives and no one being the wiser that those archives contain the editor's entire talk page edit history. Even in the case of WP:Vanish, the talk page edit history is not usually deleted. I also am not stating that productive editors who currently use this style should stop; since this archiving style is not standard, there are likely only a few (or as mentioned above, several) editors who archive this way. Proposing that editors do not archive this way will not affect editors on a large scale (I mean current editors). In my opinion, problematic editors absolutely should not be archiving this way. Yes, we can get into the discussion of what is a problematic editor, but that can be worked out at WP:Talk. In the case of Proxima Centauri and other editors I can point to, their WP:Block log does not indicate their problematic editing; their talk page edit histories, however, do. As for how I suggest that the current archives be fixed, I already mentioned WP:Histmerge above; the edit histories can be restored to the main talk page, and the archives would be fine. As for "a case could be made that copy/paste archiving violates licensing," how so? Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Licensing requires attribution. Unless you omit the signatures, you've included the attribution that the authors themselves used. But when archiving isn't required, there's no reason to object to a less common mode of archiving. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I can't agree that this is not a method of archiving that shouldn't be objected to. I will be addressing this matter at WP:Talk, sooner or later, and I will advertise it via the WP:Village pump. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this by any means, but my understanding is that attribution is satisfied as long as the cut-and-paste edit refers back to the page where content was originally contributed. This is the case for almost all cut-and-paste archiving (Lowercase sigmabot III's entries all read "archiving entries from <source>", for example). Ivanvector (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Wait: Are you suggesting that when an editor who archives this way is (through some mechanism) deemed "problematic", then their talk page archives should be histmerged? And that all non-problematic editors, new and old, can continue to use this method to archive if they want to? In that case, I've misunderstood. I still don't think it's worth the trouble, but I've no objection if there's a consensus for it. As for the copy/paste archiving theoretically violating licensing, note (again) that I don't actually think it's a problem myself, just that (in theory) the archive has a bunch of content on it that has no history associated with it. I've seen people argue before that this is a disadvantage to copy/paste archiving. As long as the edit summary clearly indicates what page the content came from, I'm sure it's fine (especially practically). That's probably a side-issue I should have left out, in order not to sidetrack. My point was supposed to be that all archiving methods have advantages and disadvantages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'm suggesting that we state that people generally should not archive this way, or rather should not archive this way (without the "generally" added in), and that this is especially the case regarding problematic editors. I am not stating that "new and old, can continue to use this method to archive if they want to." I'm stating that I don't see a need to disrupt the archiving style of the few (or several) productive editors who archive this way. It's similar to how the top of Rms125a@hotmail.com's talk page currently states, "To anyone who has a question about my username please be advised that I will not be changing it, although I did change my signature. Thanks for your understanding.
NOTE:
Robert is one of the few editors who is not obliged to change his username, as his account was created many years before the rules were changed - Alison 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)." Like I just told Nyttend above, "per what Ivanvector and I stated above, I can't agree that is not a method of archiving that shouldn't be objected to. I will be addressing this matter at WP:Talk, sooner or later, and I will advertise it via the WP:Village pump." Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Once again, there's no requirement that a user archive his talk page. Given this fact, if he decides to do it, let him do it as he wishes: don't harass him about it, and don't attempt to prevent others from starting. If you want to do something about the situation, first try to get consensus for mandating that all users archive their talk pages. And definitely don't attempt to force a histmerge. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous in the least; you are failing to get the point, as this is not about there being "no requirement that a user archive his talk page." And I have not engaged in any WP:Harassment on this matter. Once the discussion about this topic is started at WP:Talk and advertised, we will see how many agree with you or me on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically it's: "It's up to you whether or not to archive your talk page to subpages but if you do, use the cut and paste method, don't move it. Editors already using the move method can continue to do so." I can get behind that. --NeilN 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Because Ottawahitech just thanked me via WP:Echo for this edit, I looked at his contributions and saw that he'd, days/hours before I made this thread, questioned RHaworth at RHaworth's talk page about "wip out revision history"; so I take it that Ottawahitech feels similarly to the way that I feel on this matter. RHaworth offered an explanation there for the way that he archives, however. And, like I stated, I'm not looking to have RHaworth change his archiving style; I feel that, in one way or another, we should note at WP:Talk and WP:Move how this type of archiving can be problematic and is therefore less desirable than other forms of archiving. And, as seen, Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures was pointed out above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason my name is being thrown around? I got an alert message. Quis separabit? 23:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, read above; I was simply giving an example of a new rule vs. a past rule, or rather a new way of doing things vs. a past way of doing things. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This practice is kind of annoying but attempting to discourage or prevent it is pure distilled laboratory-grade WP:CREEP. If you need to search, why not just use "prefix:User talk:Proxima Centauri", just like the archive box search field would? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, WP:CREEP is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, for a reason. And I only suggest altering a policy or guideline when I think it should be altered. I have been clear above why I feel the way I do about this archiving practice. To state more on that would be needlessly repeating myself. Again, this will be discussed at the WP:Talk guideline page; I will start a discussion there about it soon after this WP:ANI thread is clearly done. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides, WP:CREEP is too often referenced when it shouldn't be. And if it were a policy or a guideline, I don't think that my suggestions in this regard would be a WP:CREEP violation. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually prefer this method of archiving for other editors. The primary disadvantage is that is means everything has to be archived at once. But for a user talk page, this is often acceptable. And it has a big advantage namely that the edit history is still on the page where the edits are now visible. Makes it easy to look through the history. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RHaworth stated similarly to Ottawahitech (see my "23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" post above if you haven't already) about that perceived advantage. In my opinion, the disadvantages (including WP:Newbies or otherwise significantly inexperienced Wikipedians not knowing much about locating previous discussions) accompanying this archive method outweighs any positive it has. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have been using the same archiving technique as Proxima Centauri for some time now. I feel it is tidier if the history for the edits visible in the "top copy" of the archive page should be found within that page. Also, if I used archive bot style archiving, my user talk page would have an history about 15,000 edits long and who would want to plough through that? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Realisticly newbies or inexperienced Wikipedians are not going to be able to locate previous discussions except in the actual archives since they don't know how to use edit histories, heck probably don't even know they exist. So this is more of a reason to require archiving, which we don't for various reasons, than to mandate a pratical style. Actual many newbies won't even find the archives even if there are very prominent links to them. On the other hand, we can't forbid archiving and require all messages to stay on the same page either because they also won't find them on very long pages. So there's really no solution for the unfortunate problems that newbies will face. So I'm not seeing any real disadvantage in the point you highlighted. Perhaps there will be a tiny number of people (who you could probably fairly call inexperienced wikipedians, but not newbies!) who can figure out how to use an edit history, but not find the proper edit history, but the number isn't going to be very high. As RHaworth also hinted at, for pages with lots of edits it's likely there are far more editors who will actually be able to find what they want using this archive system, but not be able to find what they want with a more traditional archive system due to their inability to figure out how to find the right date. All in all, I think it's fair to say that this method seems to have the best ratio of advantages to disadvantages (in terms of relative weighting) when it can be used. It's just that it's not suitable in the majority of cases to due the problems selectively archiving. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I WP:Patrol a lot, and I see WP:Newbies and other significantly inexperienced Misplaced Pages editors figuring out how to use the edit histories very quickly when it comes to reverting. It shouldn't take much for them to figure out how to use the edit history to locate a previous discussion (though, yes, I have seen WP:Newbies and other significantly inexperienced Misplaced Pages editors not even know how to revert, except for manually re-adding their material). The edit history of a talk page gives us the option to search for a previous discussion via the "Edits by user" function, which helps me easily and quickly remember if I commented on an editor's talk page and see when that discussion took place; this, in turn, helps me easily find the archive that the discussion is likely in. And the edit history of a talk page gives us the option of searching by year and month. So there is never much difficulty in locating past discussions via the standard archiving procedures, which is why editors above have described the non-standard way that is mainly being discussed now as "a real pain in the neck," "annoying," and so on. I don't see any good reason not to caution editors about archiving in a way that makes it more difficult for others to find their past discussions. Ivanvector, with his "21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)" post above, described best how I feel about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

edit break

User:RHaworth wrote above:

I have been using the same archiving technique as Proxima Centau

It is one matter when you archive your own talkpage, but quite another when you force this method on other editors.

I would greatly appreciate an WP:Administrator WP:Histmering my user talkpage to the way it was before it was tampered with (there may be other editors who may need this type of help) Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ottawa, please agree that at 580k bytes long your user talk page was hopelessly overdue for editing. (Indeed I think that at 80k bytes long the page is still too big but I will not insist.) So please agree: a) that the present "top copy" of the page is OK and b) that I may arrange for the archive bot to do regular archiving in future. If you accept those points, I am perfectly happy to move the page history back. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Rhaworth said (when I think he was addressing me): I think that at 80k bytes long the page is still too big

If you really must disrupt editing to make a point you can try archiving User:DGG’s talkpage. In the meantime can I please get back to my regular editing pattern which requires someone who does not automatically assume I am a wp:problematic editor:

• WP:Histmerging my talk page
• Salvaging Tina Huang v. Twitter which was deleted on March 28 as Misplaced Pages:Vandalism

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• What is the point of our showing log entries if you don't read them and even more to the point, what is the point of you having a user talk page if you don't read the messages on it? The log entries at Tina Huang v. Twitter clearly show that I did delete the page but then changed my mind, restored it and did something else. My comment in this thread on your talk page clearly explains what I have done. Histmerge also done. The only saving grace of DGGs talk page is that he clearly does think about archiving but I can see no earthly reason why threads from 2011 should still be there - I shall have a word with him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with User:Binksternet

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

Binksternet (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been attempting harrassment and edit-warring over the last three days: , repeating: , now stalking and systematically reverting: + , + , + , and finally, a baseless attempt at cyberbullying: - incidentally, I previously forgot to notify the editor on their talk page about starting a discussion about them (I won't forget this time), but somehow still knew about it 18 minutes later: . If the fault here lies with me and I should correct something about my own misconduct, then please let me know so I can give you all a huge break, and I will also do my best trying to forget that the last three days ever happened. Since I have been called combative, I might even consider joining the army. Thanks! 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

These look like pretty minor style changes, and the style guide would favour Binksternet's changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Really? You call complete reverting of 15 edits - which were a complete rewrite of the entire article that took hours of effort - in one turn, a "minor style change"? Maybe I'm really not combative, maybe I'm just a complete idiot who can't tell the difference. Thank you kindly for your response! 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Andy Dingley. Totally legit reverts. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I disagree with you both. I don't know if you two are Misplaced Pages administrators or not, but if that is the commonly shared sentiment, then I owe User:Binksternet an apology for unintentionally wasting his time. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing with this user is a combative person who has probably been blocked and is now using various IPs to evade the block. At the Jessica Barth biography, the IPs that have been edit-warring are the original poster, 2001:7e8:c676:ae01:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 117.218.50.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which appears to be an open proxy from India. Another article of focus is Mercator (retail), which is significant because it is a little-seen topic. At the Freed from Desire article, the warring IPs include the original poster plus 218.71.140.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from China. A related IP is 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), working on the same articles. Another IP is from Brazil, working on the Mercator article and using the same types of edit summaries: 200.145.14.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So we have a tech-savvy person here, experienced with Misplaced Pages, edit warring and working Misplaced Pages's various levers to try and get preferred content into articles, using global IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: You didn't mention She Drives Me Crazy - what did I do wrong there? I corrected the minor-style mistakes that you brought up in your first revert: here: , and you still weren't satisfied so you completely reverted all my edits again: . I am quite sure that this is all my fault as well, I just want to hear your detailed explanation of it. Thank you. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT:) Also, no mention of Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song) and Love Shack outside my own talkpage: . Please take your time before you give me another punch-in-the-mouth response. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT 2:) I suspect this is what triggered the reported editor to take his gloves off: + , which is only 12 hours away from the beginning of his attack: . I now realize that I may be half-responsible for baiting the bully, and I take no pride in that. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Agreed! If nobody is willing to do anything about all this (as I previously suspected: ), then close away. The last few days were fun, but I suppose they were fun only for me, because apparently wikipedians care more about "minor style changes" than improving general quality of the articles. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal for the OP's history of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The intentional insertion of a falsehood on yesterday's main page

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

Yesterday's main page prominently claimed that in the year 528, "China's only cross-dressing emperor ruled for a single day." From discussions at Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors it has become clear that this assertion is not only unsourced, but "slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier". Or in plain English, an outright lie, intentionally added to Misplaced Pages (apparently by an admin, though I'm not at this point entirely sure that the was the originator of this falsehood). I can see no reason why this should be seen as in any way different from other forms of vandalism – the fact that it was done for April Fools doesn't alter anything, as far as I can see. Legitimate April fools hooks may mislead – but the linked article will make the misdirection clear. In this case, the article says nothing at all about 'cross-dressing', and accordingly our readers will have no way of knowing that the supposed 'fact' was pulled out of thin air for no legitimate purpose whatsoever. If it was indeed done by User:Howcheng, as the history seems to indicate, I would have to suggest that we should seriously consider whether someone making such a gross error of judgement should continue to hold admin tools. Deliberately misleading readers, and leaving them with no indication that they have been misled, is a fundamental breach of trust, and I can see no reason why it should be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read the earlier discussion, I share your disappointment. The agreed-upon April Fools' Day twist is purposely ambiguous wording that gives readers the wrong impression (until they read the article) despite being 100% true. This claim appears to have been flat-out false, which is unfortunate and unacceptable.

However, I regard Howcheng as one of our best administrators and don't believe for a second that he had any ill intent. This seems like an isolated lapse in judgement (and nothing more) – certainly not grounds for desysopping. —David Levy 00:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be simply a misunderstanding of what the word "cross dress" means, taking it to mean "wear women's clothing" which is of course true – as long as the person cross dressing is a man. Here the intended joke seems to have been that this was the only emperor who wore women's clothing – because she was a woman.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no legitimate definition of "cross-dressing" which includes a woman wearing a woman's clothes, so the hook was an outright lie. BMK (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of the meaning of a word is not an outright lie, no.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that further there was a gender/mixup involved duing which the infant empress was presented as a boy and crowned as if she were male. So I think some serious AGF is warranted here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The 'emperor' was a child less than two months old – and we know nothing about what she wore, only that she was falsely declared to be male. Furthermore, when someone says that the hook was "slightly fudging it to make the hook sexier", there is no room for a 'mixup' or misunderstanding that I can see – it is a statement that a falsehood was intentionally placed on the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sure the world actually looks that black and white to you. To me it doesn't for which I am quite thankful.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

When someone says that the intentionally 'fudged' something to make the page 'sexier', I take them at their word. Call that black and white thinking if you like – I call it basing my judgement on the evidence available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What action would you have Misplaced Pages take? I think you're missing the distinction between "Malicious and willful attempt to do something objectively bad" and "Good-natured fun that was slightly ill-thought-out and went a tad awry". One can acknowledge the hook was wrong and perhaps should not have been posted, and still not demand action or claim that others acted in bad faith. Not every mistake in judgement is a capital offense, and sometimes we can acknowledge the poor actions of others while also acknowledging it isn't a big deal. --Jayron32 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though it was wrong, it is an isolated case and I agree that it is not necessarily bad faith. In the spirit of yesterday having been April Fool's Day, I guess we were all fooled. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The OP stated I would have to suggest that we should seriously consider whether someone making such a gross error of judgement should continue to hold admin tool both indicating they acknowledged it was a mistake, but to the OP it isn't a big deal. I believe the OP to be angry. I also believe the OP made the proposed action (removal of admin) clear. You have to understand, as Chbarts says below, there is a bit of a civil/human rights issue triggered here involving transgender and genderqueer folk. This mistake was (to us) along the line of talking about someone being the first black actor and then showing a picture of a man in black face. Just some perspective. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition, it was deliberately transphobic, and could only serve to prove that this project is extremely unfriendly to trans people and dismissive of their issues. The refusal of the editor User:Howcheng to acknowledge this and fix the issue is an example of how trans-exclusionary this project can be at times.—chbarts (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, y'all are making mountains out of molehills here. I'm happy to cop to stretching the truth a bit on the blurb, when all that we really know about the incident is that the Empress Dowager declared that her granddaughter was a boy. But now I'm going to have to do something that I didn't want to have to do and out myself as someone who is leaning transgender. I cross-dress and I identify myself as a cross-dresser. I don't see how this is offensive, when the term merely means "person who wears clothes that are typically for the opposite sex". I don't plan on transitioning to female, so what other word is applicable here? "Sissy fag"? "He-she"? So when you say this project is extremely unfriendly to trans people and dismissive of their issues you are 100% in the wrong. I am extremely sensitive to these issues because I am in that category myself. So F you and the horse you rode in on and grow a sense of humor, jackass. (Apologies to the other editors reading this, but it really gets my goat to be lectured to by someone who has no idea of the circumstances and is simply making assumptions.) —howcheng {chat} 04:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a handy tip for you: Misplaced Pages being an encyclopedia and all, don't stretch the frigging truth, ever. The fact that an admin would think it was allowable to do so, even in a DYK hook, is incredible to me. I don't agree that you should be desysopped, I think perhaps you should be banned from any editing involving the contents of the encyclopedia (broadly construed) for a short amount of time -- say a week or so -- but be allowed to continue to use your admin bit. And I trust that underneath your complaints above, you feel some measure of guilt and remorse for your dissembling, or I would be pushing for a desysop.Many, many editors work very, very hard trying to make Misplaced Pages as accurate and factual as possible. We've got enough problems with inadequate sourcing, deliberate misinformation, advertising and promotion, point of view pushing, and sneaky vandalism, without people "stretching the truth" for a lame joke. BMK (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: It was OTD, and it's the April Fool's edition, when all the blurbs have a long history of being intentionally misleading. In 1572, did the Duke of Alba really lose his glasses? In 1999, did the Northwest Territories of Canada carve their inhabitants into two pieces? No, of course not. You've been here since 2009, so you can't honestly claim that you didn't know about the long-standing tradition of having silly and somewhat misleading content on the Main Page on April 1. OTD doesn't do this any other day of the year. If you want to complain about this practice, fine, but don't go around preaching "admins should know better" when the same sort of thing has been going on for years, predating my involvement. So I'll apologize for not being clever enough to come up with a better joke, but not for trying maintain the spirit of the April Fool's Ma Page. —howcheng {chat} 05:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here since 2005, and I don't give a shit whether it was OTD or DYK, and I don't give a shit about such a stupid "tradition" wherever it occurred. The thing I give a shit about is building a factual, accurate and useful encyclopedia that serves our readers as best it can. I suggest that the "tradition" end right here and now, and also that you take a somewhat different attitude to the extremely justified criticism you're receiving. You really don't seem to think you made any kind of error in judgment, and if that's the case, than I could well begin to agree that you're not fit to be an admin, who are people whose judgment we must trust. Stop reacting, please, and do a bit of thinking about what you did. BMK (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hiding behind a point of order when someone has pointed out multiple times that what you did was wrong and hurtful is contrary to the spirit of building an open and inclusive project.—chbarts (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see anything about gender identity whatsoever here. If you're insisting that anyone who has ever dressed up as or otherwise been presented as the opposite gender (including drag queens and Shakespearean boy actors) is transgendered, you're causing a far worse problem than anything you might be trying to solve. (Hint: "cross-dresser" is only trans-exclusionary if it's applied to a transgendered person for the purposes of denying their gender identity). --Carnildo (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore I'd like to point out that Chbarts never once explained how the term "cross-dressing" is transphobic, and instead simply just repeated the assertion over and over, as if somehow we were supposed to be able to read his or her mind. I would have been perfectly happy to address your concerns, but you never bothered to tell me what they were. —howcheng {chat} 05:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll see that I have explained.—chbarts (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's trans-exclusionary to say that presenting someone of one gender as another involves cross-dressing when no cross-dressing actually occurred. It's equating gender identity to clothing, which is degrading and minimizing. Had there actually been cross-dressing, this wouldn't be an issue.—chbarts (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I swear you have gone out of your way to be offended here. This is a story of an 50-day-old baby girl. It does not involve her own gender identity. At that age, she has no real sense of self and is barely even holding her own head up. I apologize for being combative in my response here. It's just frustrating when you could have explained yourself hours ago, and I never would have felt the need to out my own proclivities, which involves me risking my standing in my community. But as they say, you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. Besides, gender identity for someone like me is heavily tied to clothing. —howcheng {chat} 05:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your personal attacks notwithstanding, do you admit that what you did was wrong, and will you at least claim you won't do it again?—chbarts (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• This must not happen again. If it can be dealt with by a civilised apology and promise to avoid the area in future, that would be great. If not, I would suggest a desysop may be in order. --John (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• What we need is more humour like this on April Fools' Day. Now that April 1st is over this thread can be closed. QuackGuru (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I kind of hope this is some kind of dadaist April Fools' joke, because if it's not, it's a massive overreaction. What's next, we torture Howcheng's entire family to death for the horrible crime of extrapolating slightly on an April Fools' DYK hook to make it more interesting? Lankiveil 06:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
    • We are not primarily a humorous project. I am not a fan of behaviour like this, which crosses a line. If it is likely to be repeated, action needs to be taken to prevent such repetition. Hyperbole will not help us, and neither will trying to brush the matter under the carpet. --John (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • We get it. You are not a big fan of the traditions on Misplaced Pages for April Fools' fun. Why so serious? Or maybe you are joking around by being so serous. QuackGuru (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Insulting a whole group of people and then claiming you're just joking is not behavior we should tolerate. Worse is having what you did wrong explained to you and then refusing to acknowledge that there is, or even could be, a problem with your actions. That is something willfully bad, and it is evidence of bad faith.—chbarts (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to read some more Aprils Fool's jokes. Can you point to me the other issues and evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. :P --TMCk (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

When were you elected a spokesperson for this group of which I am a member? I certainly don't recall getting that memo. I am sorry that you perceived there to be an insult in the blurb. Even after your explanation, I still don't see it. —howcheng {chat} 07:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Eish. I was happy to find an April Fools' item on the main page, all the more so since it took a bit of puzzling to figure out what it referred to (i.e. got me to attentively read an article I normally wouldn't have). It certainly wasn't the best trick I've seen this April 1, but it was fine for the day. I suppose there could be a discussion about whether this kind of tradition should be kept up (i.e. is Misplaced Pages too trusted and/or stuffy for a bit of fun by now?) – although I'd argue that treating readers as hyper-sensitive hothouse flowers sells both them and the project short. In any case, Howcheng has nothing to apologize about. Elmidae (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to be humorous on Misplaced Pages can joke around to their heart's content on the talk pages of their friends. It should never invade article space or the front page. Never. Ever. Those who think it's fine for fun and games and "stretching the truth" to be part of the public face of the first source of information for millions and millions of people are just simply, utterly mistaken. That's not what we're about, and it should stop, now, forever. It's time to start a new tradition of taking what we do here seriously, and getting our jollies elsewhere. BMK (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) think John's point is this – people are allowed to be funny, and equally people are allowed to find the same humour unfunny or even offensive. In either case, neither view must interfere with writing an encyclopedia. The contentious hook has been and gone so I suggest we agree that mistakes happen, remind howcheng that factual accuracy has to trump humour, put this behind us and move on. Ritchie333 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if Howcheng would actually acknowledge that, because he hasn't so far. He's "cop to stretching the truth" and apologized for "not being clever enough to come up with a better joke", but, so far as I am aware, he hasn't actually said that he had a lapse in judgment. I think that at least some significant portion of the community needs to hear that. We cannot simply assume it. BMK (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. Infants are often dressed based on the gender assigned at birth and a play on words that they were cross-dressed and/or misgendered is not transphobic. The hook that the person is an infant sets the tone. It becomes obvious when the article is read. --DHeyward (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Poor howcheng. Only Emperor for a day and nobody even liked his frock. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be reasonably called offensive or inaccurate, If the child wore clothes traditional for girls while being declared a boy that could reasonably be referred to as cross dressing. If the child wore clothes traditional for boys while being biologically a girl that could reasonably be referred to as cross dressing. It is not disputed the child was biologically a girl, it is not disputed that the child was declared a boy and it is not disputed that chinese childrens clothing was not traditionally gender neutral, therefore the child could reasonably be referred to as cross dressed. I think April Fools needs to stop, not just on wikipedia but worldwide, however it is still a tradition, and one that wikipedia engages with and this otd ambiguous "joke" is just poor humour not poor taste. SPACKlick (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing about the semantics of what "cross-dressing" means is missing the point. Just accept that other people were genuinely surprised by the link, and that at least from their point of view, the hook went against the principle of least astonishment that good linking should adhere to. Or, if you prefer, WP:EASTER (yes, irony intended). Ritchie333 08:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully disagree. The semantics of cross dressing was entirely the basis of the initial complaint. OTD on April Fool's is traditionally all about violating the principle of least astonishment, however the link was cross dressing emperor and linked to the article about the emperor. That's far from an easter eggSPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On a related note

I think it is also worth noting that the entry which made light of the Battle of Okinawa (and to a lesser extent the Battle of Five Forks) was also in extremely poor taste. I am not a spoilsport and have no problem with DYK hooks talking about an elephant named Osama or Russian a billionaire named God. But a line must exist somewhere, and in my opinion joking about the devasation of a battle, on the anniversary of the event, takes the frivolity too far. I know Howcheng is a diligent volunteer an On this day, because I have seen his work there many times before. I am certainly not baying for blood. I just wish to put this on the record so that a similar mistake is not made in the name of humour next year. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note that I didn't write either of those hooks, although I did schedule them. Both blurbs have made previous appearances and if there were complaints about them in the past, they're buried in edit histories or archives. There's nothing about them on WT:Selected anniversaries/April 1 so it was reasonable to assume that it would be similar this time around. —howcheng {chat} 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe could ask howcheng to apologise to all Chinese people (individually) for his faux pas. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And not a peep about Did_you_know_nominations/Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators being forcibly withdrawn. I feel cheated. EEng (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carter and Ret.Prof

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

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ret.Prof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing these two users before AN/I to propose a three month topic ban on the Gospel of Matthew. More for Ret.Prof, as his arguing over this page go back Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8 over a year. The specific issue that brings this up is the fighting over each other, not the content, at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE. The topic ban should allow cooler heads to prevail. If not then a permanent topic ban will be needed. I'm not personally involved, I went to the NPOV/N to see if I could contribute, but didn't feel like getting involved in the fighting. I don't believe diffs are needed here as just reading the content on NPOV/N will show the fighting. I'm hoping that these two can contribute usefully to other areas if they get a topic ban here. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposed topic ban of John Carter

I propose this as the editor has repeatedly used threats of AN/I as his argument on NPOV/N. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• There can be no topic ban without evidence. It's not reasonable to ask people to read NPOVN to find what is on the OP's mind. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Observations About Two Editors and a Call for an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Confusion, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Response to PICO which made up >80% of the NPOV/N when I posted. As in the majority of it. If you had actually read any of the NPOV/N that I linked to you would have realized this. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the merits of your case, a snarky attitude won't endear you to your fellow editors. I can see you are frustrated, Jerodlycett, but you should expect questions like Johnuniq's. It would help if you provided specific diffs that support your argument that an editor's conduct is inappropriate. The mere fact that people argue is not grounds for a topic ban. Liz 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it is also reasonable to see at the NPOVN the clear evidence of dishonest representation of fact by User:Robert McClenon, and repeat that the comments he described as "personal attacks" in no way qualify as such by policy and guidelines. Questioning someone's competence is not a personal attack, and I think no one with any awareness of the pages WP:NPA and WP:CIR would say that, particularly considering how frequently the latter is used here. Robert's ill-informed, prejudicial, and rather incompetent judgments aside, I am unaware of having made any statements which qualify as personal attacks. I have been less active do to work through the early days of the week, but am in the process of putting together a page in user space detailing the lengthy history of disruption, POV pushing, and other problematic behavior of the editor in question, which was started yesterday at User:John Carter/Ret. Prof. And, yes, Ret. Prof is one of the two people who came to mind as one of the worst examples of a certain type of problematic editor, as discussed at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet. Although I have not yet gotten all the data together, and probably won't until the weekend, this comment from a member of the Mediation Committee on his user talk page, Andrevan, here, indicating that individual himself has been basically convinced that Ret.Prof's edits have been very problematic, is I think to be given much more attention and regard than Robert McClenon's grossly unfounded and I believe demonstrably baseless accusations at the NPOVN. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @Liz: Yes, I am frustrated. are the diffs for this. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
        • It is worth noting that the "evidence" of my misconduct contains only a single comment from me, the first one, which makes it really questionable how any of the others can reasonably be counted as "evidence" against me. Also, the first one, the only one from me, contains no direct or even indirect mention of any individual, but refers to a page I am developing for "discussions of this type," and I cannot see how it can reasonably be counted as a persona attack as per WP:NPA. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks for pointing that out, didn't realize that I used the wrong type of diff in the template. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
            • It would still be useful if you could indicate what comments in those statements you believe qualify as "personal attacks," because, honestly, I don't see any. I realize you are new here, having been I think one of the first people to have contacted you, but if you are going to accuse people of personal attacks it really helps to show things that truly qualify as "attacks"? John Carter (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• He has now come by my talk page with this: which as I stated in my followup comment smells of WP:HOUNDING to me. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion. However, I believe the accusations of personal attacks Robert McClenon made at the NPOVN, without any evidence, and the fact that he has maintained a rather obviously self-righteous tone thereafter, while at the same time seemingly ignoring his own false accusations, which I believe themselves reasonably qualify as personal attacks, gives me cause to question his basic ability to apply guidelines or act in accord with them. That is generally considered not hounding. Before you make any further accusations of the above sort, might I suggest that you perhaps read all the guidelines? John Carter (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: In respect to WP:COMPETENCE, Ret.Prof has a history of providing quotations which did not verify the contents he sought to add to the edited articles. A minimal competence as an editor would require that one responsibly uses references (footnotes). So I understand why John Carter accused him of incompetence (the claim isn't novel). I did not check if this is the case now (in the most recent dispute), since noticeboards debates with Ret.Prof tend to be rather tiring, and other editors tend to get irritated by his stubbornness. Of course, as a civil POV-pusher it was difficult to get him administratively sanctioned. What amazes me is his claim that old issues were resolved, in as far as he is concerned, while according to his own statements he had quit pushing those POVs because of being subjected to bullying (see his edits of his own user page every time before taking a several months break). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - While RP isn't "incompetent", his intermittent tendentiousness (with episodes of running away) is very much of an extenuating circumstance. As Tgeorgescu notes, RP has provoked JC, who is an easily provokable editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Robert, as has been indicated at the NPOVN, your rushes to judgment and rather obnoxious insistance on presenting your at best dubiously founded opinions as fact would be trying to anybody. I believe anybody, when faced with someone basically lying about them to their faces, as I believe you did at NPOVN, would be as disgusted with it as I indicated on your user talk page. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is simply no way that there is a valid case here. No evidence has been presented that there is disruption requiring this sanction. The rationale behind the request isn't valid either. And I say this as someone who recently clashed with John, if I can remember correctly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. John is defending the wiki against POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. Users adding POV, fringe theories and OR, and continuing to do so months after consensus has already very clearly turned against them, should be threatened with being brought to ANI. I haven't looked into the latest iteration of the Matthew dispute in much detail, but the evidence presented here indicates if anything that John Carter has been doing what needs to be done more on articles that are prone to POV-pushing by users who at best have no idea how Misplaced Pages sourcing works like Gospel of Matthew, Daisaku Ikeda, Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai. Given what John Carter and the rest of the community have had to put up with from Ret.prof, saying the latter has CIR issues is not a violation of NPA; frustration might even have driven John Carter to call Ret.prof a "jackass" or equivalent I would still say not to punish the one putting up with abuse and getting overly frustrated. (And no, the irony of defending JC from bad-faith accusations of "personal attacks" when he has made the exact same accusations against me was not lost on me.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Edited: 09:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Ret.Prof

I more strongly propose this as he has a longer history of fighting. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• There can be no topic ban without evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I stated, the arguing goes back to Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8. It starts at the first topic there and continues through all the archives to the present day. If you would read what I provided you'd see the evidence. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not realistic to ask editors to read through four pages of talk page archives (Archives 8-11) to find the evidence to support your proposal. Liz 14:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • That's just it, the entire set of archives is the evidence. Every single thing on there has Ret.Prof arguing with someone about something. I don't know how to make myself clearer. There is four archives of arguing brought on by one editor. That's what I meant by read it and see. If you can make it through four archives of fighting and can say that there's no evidence, then so be it, but please at least read them before saying there's no evidence. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett: You appear to be a new editor that does not understand the process. Whether you are right or wrong, you have to provide "diffs" to specific comments so that other editors can evaluate the comments.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I ran into an issue. I'm not sure how to provide a diff for Old revision of Talk:Gospel of Matthew/Archive 8 as it's the first thing on that page. I can provide for that first archive page. I'm busy tonight but I will try to provide the diffs for the others tomorrow so you can read the diffs. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett: You can access the edit history via the current Talk page. The diffs for those discussions are to be found here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Thank you. I'm already exhausted with this issue, so I'm going to step away for the night and come back tomorrow to sort through all that and find the diffs. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support - A year of continuing tendentious editing, with running away when challenged, is long enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per my above comment, not seeing any evidence that a sanction is actually justified at all. Ponting at random talk page archives and proclaiming them to be complete evidence that this user needs a tban doesn't wash. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (non admin observation) I see nothing in the diffs that warrant a ban, only a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This is a user who considers the necessarily increasingly forceful assertion of policy against inclusion of fringe material to be "bullying". This seems to em to be because he considers "no" to be an unacceptable answer, and therefore keeps demanding regardless of how often the answer is "no" (a very very common outcome, from a review of contributions. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. POV-pushing of fringe theories, and not listening even after months of the community unanimously telling them to drop it. Time to put this dead horse to rest. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Response by Ret.Prof

Over the past couple of years I have run into conflict with a small group of editors. See *ANI - An Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views. When the ANI against me failed, I made a request for mediation. The mediator did an excellent job and all the major issues were resolved. See History of Major conflicts I truly believed I could now continue with normal editing.

There remained one minor point in need of classification. Diff 1 The response to my NPOV concern was:

1. To wrongfully close it before any uninvolved editors could weigh in, (after only one hour and 49 minutes) Diff 2. This was "not appropriate" nor were the "premature unilateral threats of punishment" Diff 3.
2. Quite a number of behavior concerns were raised about me. However, I did NOT retaliate, but explained this notice board was not the place to raise concerns about an editor's possible violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. Diff 4

I further suggested in good faith we try to work things out. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The group of editors he has been in conflict with includes basically everybody who has ever worked on the same content. And it has been of a frankly and obviously consistent nature, that of promoting a fringe view of the essential Jewishness of early Christianity, something he has indicated a "conversion" to in user space rather dramatically. His conflicts are actually not really with other editors, but with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, which, basically, do not support the insertion of the material which seems to concur with his own religious conversion. He is, and pretty much has been from the beginning, an SPA with no interest but finding some way to support his own personal views here. Honestly, if I could find any Christian groups of the present time which held the same beliefs, as I have indicated I think more than once, I would have started an article on that subject already. The fact that I haven't found such a group says a lot about how dubiously notable the belief is, and the fact that Ret.Prof has been arguing for material supporting the rather obviously minority speculations regarding this topic from, pretty much, the beginning of his editing here, makes the possibility of a site ban as an editor who has exhausted the patience of the community an I believe reasonable outcome. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As usual, John, you provide an impassioned statement but you neglect to provide diffs that support your claims of conflict and disruption. I think for admins to take any action, you will have to supply more than your assessment of the situation. Liz 16:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, without diffs this just sounds like a contentious content dispute.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I am working over at wikisource today to (with luck) finish the division of a dictionary of the Book of Mormon into separate pages. I expect that to take some time, but as I also said above I should have it finished today or tomorrow, and, if this thread is still alive on Saturday, which I rather expect, either a link to the evidence page and/or a full list of that evidence will be presented here. But, honestly, considering how long I've left it hanging, finishing the Dictionary I mentioned comes first in my own eyes. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fighting

The basis for this proposed ban is a long "history of fighting". I will over the next few days bring substantial evidence to show this is not the case. Rather the facts I will present shall firmly establish that I am to be harassed, until I am "driven from this encyclopedia". The evidence will show that I am "a mild-mannered user", have been "bullied", "belittled" and for whom WP is "no longer a hospitable place". Diff 5 Diff 6 Please note that I have been advised that arbitration is now in order. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RP's characterization of himself as a "mild-mannered user" is literally true and self-serving and irrelevant. He is characteristic of a type of "mild-mannered" user who cannot edit collaboratively. As to being "belittled", RP belongs to a type of editor who sees all disagreement as belittling. If RP actually thinks that he wants arbitration now, he doesn't understand that arbitration would not vindicate him. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a ban, it's a topic ban I proposed, and for your own good. I saw the history of fighting since last January. Can you say anything about that? If you need to use arbitration, do so. The reason I think it would be good is because you are obviously upset enough to assume bad faith. You were accused of being cowardly for trying to take a break to cool down. If it's forced on you, no one can accuse you of that. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and help. I will ponder them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, he has already attempted arbitration, and made and withdrawn a request for it previously, presumably I think because he realized his reasons for filing the arbitration were basically complaints about attempts of others to adhere to the policies and guidelines he has pretty much ignored when they disagree with his personal opinions from the beginning of his time as an editor here. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

??? I withdrew the request for arbitration as a good will gesture to pursue informal mediation. With help of the mediator we resolved all our conflicts. Working to resolve issues is a good thing and for this I am to be banned for fighting??? Please note that the 50 CE date is a minor issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Working to resolve substantive issues is a good thing. Working to resolve tendentious insistence that one's own favored material be included is also a good thing, and I believe that, given the time requested to finish sectioning an encyclopedia at wikisource, I will be able to come up with enough evidence regarding the long-term problematic behavior of one individual here to make it easier for others to see why I think there are sufficient grounds to request a topic or site ban. using noticeboards in such a way is, in fact, one of their primary purposes. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Other propositions

If you have other propositions please place them here for all to consider. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose that you actually provide some evidence. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing occurs as a part of the process of a group of editors with differing points of view coming to a consensus. Unless you have evidence of WP:NPA or WP:TE, I don't see the rationale for a long topic ban. Liz 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Also taking diffs from 2014, which led to consensus and an end to conflict cannot be a used as a basis for a topic ban. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

First, it is worth noting that Ret.Prof had been on one of his now rather regular breaks since 2014, as can be seen here. It is also worth noting, as per that page, that, from the time of his break from wikipedia on October 19, of 2014, his first subsequent edit to wikipedia, on March 10, 2015, was to the NPOV noticeboard putting forward the argument about the dating of the Gospel of Matthew, pretty much, so far as I can remember, on the same points that had lost in the previous discussion. The fact that he had taken a break of about 5 months in which he did nothing does not really serve as a true indicator of anything, other than the fact that he apparently sought to resurface after five months arguing, basically, the same points. I am going to ping @Andrevan: again here for his input regarding what he thought the prior discussion was about, and, if I don't get response by Saturday hopefully at the latest, will add the links then or as shortly as possible thereafter. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I was originally going to suggest only one month, but something snapped and I suggested three, and created this other props section. If I'm correct in my view that Ret.Prof has a history of fighting, and John Carter's comments were inappropriate then I believe that they could actually both get a ban for their actions. I don't feel either editor is in need of a ban. I also narrowed the scope of my proposal to only the single topic, rather than a broader category such as Christianity. Honestly one of the main reasons for this AN/I is because they need arbitration or mediation, and I don't think either of them will ask for it. I'm truly hoping that the end result of this AN/I is that the issue get resolved, without needing to resort to any ban at all. I just don't see it happening due to pent up anger/frustration, and hopefully a ban will let them come back calmer. Jerodlycett (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Jerodlycett says that "they need arbitration or mediation". That is vague, since arbitration and mediation are two significantly different approaches, the first for conduct issues, the second for content issues. Also, mediation has been tried, and has failed. Neither of them would be wise to ask for arbitration, which would be likely to impose sanctions on them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As to Other Propositions, see below for the recommendation for community general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposition

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

Wow, this AN/I is so very ill-conceived, lacking in evidence that I suggest the following:

1. John and I agree not to edit the Gospel of Matthew for three months and allow others to to form a consensus re the NPOV debate re the 50 CE date.
2. John and I agree to accept that consensus.

This AN/I should never have been brought forward! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not put words in the mouths of others, particularly me, Ret.Prof. I believe the discussion should continue, or at least not yet be closed, until and unless the evidence from others regarding the I believe the matter of possibly sanctionable behavior over the long term is put forward and examined. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed with your response...but had to give it a try! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An Assessment and Characterization

As User:Jerodlycett (J) notes, conflict over Gospel According to Matthew has been going on for a long time, at least since February 2014. The primary issue is when the book was written, or, more precisely, how to word a neutral statement as to the range of scholarly opinions as to when the book was written. There also is a fringe viewpoint, evidently held by User:Ret.Prof, that the book was originally written in Hebrew. (The existing manuscripts are in Greek, and almost all scholars believe either that the book was written in the Greek, or that the book was composed in Aramaic and almost immediately reduced to the existing Greek.)

A Particular Type of Difficult Editor

User: Ret.Prof (RP) belongs to a class of single-purpose editor whom experienced editors sometimes encounter in Misplaced Pages. Such editors typically view and portray themselves as mild-mannered, but can be extremely troublesome, sometimes in a cowardly way. Such an editor edits in a defined area (the defining characteristic of SPAs) with a particular agenda and exhibits some of the following characteristics:

• The editor’s view is often considered fringe.
• The editor is civil but stubborn, and pushes their viewpoint, and does not compromise, but either advances new arguments or rewords the same arguments.
• The editor frequently whines that other editors (possibly forming a cabal) are seeking to have him banned (whether or not there actually is such a sentiment, by a cabal or otherwise).
• The editor is not concise, and responds with walls of text or rambling screeds that amount to a filibuster of discussion.
• The editor interprets criticisms as personal attacks, then on being challenged, interprets the challenges as personal attacks. Eventually the responses to criticisms frustrate other editors to the point where there are personal attacks.
• The editor eventually responds to criticisms by stating the need to take a (possibly extended) break from editing, thus interrupting and suspending any attempt at resolution.

Editors like RP are not uncommon in Misplaced Pages, and are difficult to deal with because they seem to be mild-mannered, which they are, but they are persistent and make collaboration difficult.

Editors such as RP are sometimes accused of lacking in required competence. That argument is fallacious, but is also irrelevant. The competence essay is an essay, not a guideline, and so, in itself, is not really a basis for blocking or banning editors. Also, the competence essay is meant to apply to editors who lack a command of the English language, or who are otherwise unable to reason or communicate. It is not really meant to apply to editors whose English is sound and who can reason and communicate, but simply persist in communicating incorrect conclusions. The argument, offered among others by User:John Carter (JC), that RP is incompetent because he lacks an understanding of basic policies is off the point. I have no reason to think that RP does not understand basic policies such as NPOV, which is the core policy of Misplaced Pages, but at the same time is a difficult and subtle policy over which reasonable editors disagree. The problem with RP is not incompetence; it is tendentious editing compounded by a bad attitude toward disagreement.

J proposes a topic-ban against RP on the Gospel of Matthew. A topic-ban on a single-purpose account is of course the equivalent of a site ban, but may sometimes be necessary.

An Alternate Proposition

J wrote: "If you have other propositions please place them here for all to consider." Since this article has been the subject of failed efforts at resolution for more than a year, I have an alternate proposition, and that is Community General Sanctions, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor who, after being made aware of the sanction regime, continues to edit disruptively. These sanctions may include topic-bans of varying duration, restrictions on reverts (e.g, 1RR), or blocks. Community general sanctions will very likely result in RP being topic-banned, but simply topic-banning him is not a substitute for general sanctions, because edit-warring and disruptive editing have occurred between other editors also.

Some of the editors who have clashed on this article have threatened, talked about, or proposed arbitration. Arbitration might result in topic-bans, interaction bans, or site bans against certain editors. It would also be likely to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are similar to but more formal than community general sanctions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to An Assessment and Characterization by Robert McClenon

First let me say Robert is a good faith editor. He is respected and well spoken. Yet, he and others like him in authority pose a great threat! Having carefully read his comments it is clear that he has not carefully read my diffs. No scholar let alone me, would agree with his introduction and I would go far as to say that he has been negligent in his Assessment and Characterization of Ret.Prof.

1. The editor’s view is often considered fringe

All actions against me alleging fringe have failed including Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views AN/I, WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard etc., because my material is always backed by several mainstrean reliable sources which by definition is not WP:FRINGE . Furthermore Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

2. The editor does not compromise

Not true. My edit history shows that I have compromised many times! Diff 9, Diff 10 Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

3 The editor frequently "whines" that other editors are possibly forming a "cabal"

Not true. I never "whine" nor do I believe there is a "cabal". I do have some concerns about a small group of editors misbehaving. See Diff11, Diff 12 , Diff 13 Diff 14 Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

4. The editor is not concise, and responds with walls of text

When I first started a Misplaced Pages, I on occasion wrote walls of text like this. >>>>>>> Diff 15, LOL, But not anymore. I now think in short sound bites. Also, once again Robert has failed to support his accusations with diffs or other evidence.

5. The editor interprets criticisms as personal attacks

These many criticisms of Ret.Prof include being an "incompetent editor who pushes fringe", "rudeness","disruptive editing", "POV pushing", "Tendentious editing", "taking breaks", "single-purpose editing", "running away", "being nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility", "editorial cowardice", "not behaving in a constructive way", "arrogance" "being woefully illogical", "problematic edits" and "Self-aggrandizement" to the point of "being truly bizarre." Indeed he is not a "real professor" and is the kind of vexatious editor who drives away good editors" Thus he is "no longer welcome" to edit at Misplaced Pages. I used to take some of these as personal attacks... but I have now come to understand that etiquette at Misplaced Pages is different than at a university. The biggest difficulty I now have with these criticisms, is the lack diffs or other evidence.

6. Taking a (possibly extended) break

See below & Diff 16 I promise not to take any more breaks! LOL...I think it is clear why arbitration is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Community General Sanctions

The Gospel of Matthew should be subject to Community General Sanctions. It might be necessary to extend the sanctions further to other articles about the first-century origins of Christianity, which frequently wind up in arbitration (e.g., Ebionites, Historicity of Jesus, but, since the topic area does frequently wind up in arbitration, the ArbCom can extend the sanctions when it sees necessary.)

• Support as proposer. Fourteen months of quarreling is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support an active Sword of Damocles may help keep discussions calmer. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Rush to Judgment: you have not given me time to present my evidence! Also there is a lack of evidence to support your allegations. I think you have proven only one thing: Why Arbitration is necessary! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: One of the major reasons for requesting a ban is that I am in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on Running Away and Editorial Cowardice. It appears that their is no such policy and this was simply made up. Also you failed to produce any diffs to support your claim. The truth is that Whenever I am charged with wrongdoing, I stop editing immediately. I seek advice from Admins and Bureaucrats and do not resume editing until the issue is resolved. In those cases where I am mistaken or 'mess up' I promptly apologize and rectify my error. These false allegations would never hold up at arbitration or any fair hearing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The second major allegation against me is Tendentious editing. At least this policy exists. However it is broad, and you have not indicated which part I am in violation of, nor have you presented any Diffs etc to support your accusation. Simply existing, does not make one a Tendentious Editor. This kind of nonsense would be allowed at arbitration. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Problem: This notice board has been dominated by a small group of editors, which makes it difficult for a single good faith user to get a fair hearing. See Arbitration. -Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as rush to judgment. Robert has once again to my eyes shown a remarkable degree of pomposity and arrogance in making this attempt at long-winded pontification. As I have already said, rather prominently above, I am in the process of preparing the data on Ret.Prof's history to add here, for the purposes of allowing others to evaluate it and consider whether a topic ban or site ban of the editor is appropriate. This attempt to pre-empt the material I have already indicated I will present shortly above raises very serious questions in my eyes regarding just how highly the editor involved places his own opinions, particularly in relation to matters of evidence, and, well, basic manners. I regret to say that, however highly he might obviously hold his own opinions, they are still just his opinions, and as has been indicated recently at the WP:NPOVN noticeboard, he has a demonstrable history of making at best poorly-based and possibly incompetent judgments in his opinions. Robert, in all honesty, the project functioned quite well before you became an active editor, and it does not really need your making these long, and, ultimately, redundant pontifications you seem so fond of making. If you do not have the good manners to apologize for grossly misrepresenting facts, as I believe you clearly demonstrated at the NPOVN, at least have the good manners to allow others to do what they said they would do before making these presumptuous rushes to judgment of yours. And, just as bad, your dare I say self-important presentations of your opinions tends to encourage others, some of whom seem to start new threads or subthreads as a matter of course for virtually every post, such as the subthread immediately below. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support IFF Ret. Prof is not topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Simply not enough evidence presented for banning anybody! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am very disappointed. In 2014 I truly hoped that we could work out our differences. I carefully read Misplaced Pages's policies. I focused on the common ground, assumed good faith and tried to be polite in all circumstances. I trusted the mediator and truly believed we had worked out all our differences on various topics from the Hebrew Gospel to the Oral Gospel tradition. I accepted all the compromises and it would be fair to say I met them more than half way. After working things through I made the decision to move on and and edit other areas of interest including Jesus and the Talmud, Josephus and Celsus. I spent most of my time working on draft edits on my user pages.

Although personally I supported the 85 CE date for completion of the Gospel of Matthew in Koine Greek, I noticed a great deal of mainstream scholarship that argued for the 50 CE date. In good faith I brought my concern to the NPOV noticeboard for clarification. It was merely an attempt to understand the importance of NPOV at Misplaced Pages. I planned to use the consensus reached as a guide for my future editing. Immediately my request was wrongfully closed. After the closure was reversed, the focus became my behavior and that I would be taken to AN/I to be banned. I was accused of fighting and other violations. I stated that accusations re personal behavior were not appropriate on the NPOV noticeboard page but was overruled! I believe these allegations to be false. I also believe I was working in good faith to reach agreement on some difficult scholarly issues presented in the reliable sources. Furthermore I believe a careful review of my edits IN CONTEXT will substantiate my position. This needs to be done by unbiased arbitrators and if the decide my conduct is worthy of a ban, then I will accept it without bitterness. Therefore I am requesting Arbitration.

When I retired, I felt I could be of help to Misplaced Pages. I truly believe in the project. I think if my edits are carefully reviewed, they will show that I have tried to improve articles by adding updated scholarship and making sure they were written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A quick fix for the lack of evidence

If not enough evidence was presented, I suggest reopening the case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views, since the problems mentioned there did not go away. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a lack of evidence. However, Arbitration is a better way to go rather than to reopen Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Incompetent editor who pushes fringe views Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

• Come on people, have you seen the length of this thread? It's blatantly obvious that nothing here is going to have any action taken, and it's seriously doubtful that there is even any reason why action should be taken. If I was an uninvolved admin, I would have closed it myself; of course, I'm not, so all I can do is recommend that the warring parties withdraw, or some uninvolved roaming admin just closes the thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to this closing. It's just going to devolve into more fighting. I think Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiBullying is the correct spot in this case, but I couldn't bring it there myself. @Lukeno94: think you could ping an admin letting them know the OP of this agrees with closure? Jerodlycett (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lack of evidence and the legitimate concerns can be best dealt with at Arbitration - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew page name change

I want to change the name of he:הרטה מילר but a redirect is preventing the change. Mcljlm (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mcljlm: This is for the English Misplaced Pages only – can I suggest he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות ממפעילים? Mdann52 (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Aubmn and sockpuppetry

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

Aubmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy on the article Marie Antoinette, showing some clear signs of ownership (1) as well as some dubious citation practices by adding extensive information without changing existing citations, yet claiming that the existing citations are covering the drastic changes.

At several times IPs from Lebanon has showed up at crucial points to participate in edit wars and showing support for the edits when Aubmn edits have been challenged: 1, 2, edit summary: "It is the first time I read this article since 1 year ago, it is much better completed ,with source other than Fraser, physics facts only 10 words in thousands of words"). Aubmn was [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Aubmn&diff=prev&oldid=651180804 warned about editing while being logged out, and again when it continued. Yet today a third Lebanese IP shows up at the page pretending not to be Aubmn and supporting their edit warring: 1, 2. The first edit suggesting that I go to talk page, even though I had already posted on the talk page (to which neither Aubmn or their many IP iterations has bothered replying).

This usage of IPs as edit warring tag team is clearly an abuse of WP:SOCK and as they have been warned for it in the past, perhaps it is time for some sanctions until they understand the policies regarding that issue? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Saddhiyama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SAID WIKiPEDIA IS NOT RELIABLE ON MARIE ANTOINETTE TALK PAGE, REVERTED ME AND ANOTHER EDITOR THREE TIMES IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS IN SPITE THAT WE ASKED HIM ALMOST BEGGING HIM BEFORE EACH REVERT TO GO TO THE TALK PAGE FOR COMPROMISE AND CONSENSUS IN ADDITION ON MARCH 3O I SUSPECT SOCKPUPPETRY ON HIS PART BUT I CAN T ACCUSE HIM WITH CERTAINTY BECAUSE I RESPECT UNKOWN EDITORS; Saddhiayama has already broken Misplaced Pages rules as he removed major informations without trying to find consensus on the subject talk page although he was asked after each revert by me and other people to go to the talk page to find consensus and compromise but he persisted in his reverts, in addition he reverted me and other editors 3 times in less than 2 hours, I' m a very positive editor who was trying to communicate with a lot of people to make this article better, the talk page about size prove that although I contributed a lot to this article adding major information's and removing massive copyrights violations, I always worked with other people even giving them informations and sources about the subject. A lot of people use Misplaced Pages, this article is read by more than 3000 persons everyday, I 'm know working on the talk page to find a compromise. Should I believe Saddhiyama used sockpuppetry because two days ago an unknown ip made a lot of changes to be followed directly by his intervention and reverting me. What is clear Saddhiyama did not go to the talk page first and he reverted me and other editors three times. Anyway I 'm ready to work with him on common ground like I do with all editors.Aubmn (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "possible WP:Sockpuppeting"; he is WP:Sockpuppeting. And anyone with common sense knows it, which is also why he's been warned about it more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And regarding the "possible WP:Sockpuppeting" part of my post above, I was responding to this heading; Aubmn had highjacked the thread, and I misread it as Saddhiyama's heading. Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn (talk · contribs), this is inappropriate; you did not start this thread, so you should stop highjacking it. There is no need whatsoever for two sections at WP:ANI addressing this matter. You are highly WP:Disruptive and should be blocked for it. In my opinion, you should be indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't have "possible WP:Sockpuppeting" but we do have Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets when socking is suspected but not verified. Liz 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Flyer22, I didn't see the edit you reverted that made the reference to possible sockpuppetry so the context of your comment was not clear. Liz 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to know about Aubmn's problematic editing at the Marie Antoinette article; start with this section, and keep reading, or skimming, on from that point. WP:Copyright violations and other messes. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Even though that article is on my WP:Watchlist, I got fed up with Aubmn's editing and left NebY and others to deal with him; sorry about that, NebY. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer as usual is polite and positive, she wants to block an editor who finished a major article, who is always positive and who removed thousands of copyright violations in Marie Antoinette article, today I 'm working in a consensual spirit on Napoleon(see Napoleon talk page) another major article, I 'm changing it in a massive way with the collaboration of other positive editors not like Flyer who was negative with me from the beginning althought I acknowledge my mistakes because I didn 't know all the rules about copyright laws, I was positive in correcting all my mistakes and in removing thousands of copyrights violations who were in the article before my contributions.I proposed to work with Flyer only to be insulted , see MA talk page.Aubmn (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a she, your characterization of my involvement is false (as anyone is free to investigate), and I reiterate that you should be indefinitely blocked. At least until editors are certain that you are no longer a threat to Misplaced Pages articles. Flyer22 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the he, I changed it to she, I didn 't know excuse me.Aubmn (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April fools - Take two

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

Misplaced Pages is getting to be like the Puritans abolishing Christmas in the seventeenth century. There's a discussion on the Village Pump complaining about the term "talk page stalker" which has always been in the context of a nice furry jaguar padding through the jungle and has only offended editors when other editors stir things up. The proposal is to redirect to "talk page watcher". Seems to me to be a throwback to George Orwell and "1984". For example, at the Village pump discussion one editor has said

Hunting animals, hunting people. Yes, that's completely the same.

Unbelievable.

Yesterday, ] had a large red notice above the list of appeals saying

This list is out - of - date. Click on User talk: ... for more information

This led to the user talk page of an editor whose handle consists of two words and will be familiar to you, but as my memory is not what it was I cannot provide the name since the history of yesterday's surfing has been wiped from my browser. The talk page carried the usual banner seen by IP editors, "You have new message from another editor. Click this link to view." So I clicked the link and this message came up

You have been April fooled. See the number of people who have been fooled in previous years.

There then followed a list of years with numbers beside them (in the low hundreds) which is presumably an automated tally of the number of clicks made by unsuspecting users in the years cited. This jape is no doubt an irritant to users who have been blocked but I cannot see that the "Emperor's new clothes" prank discussed above is more blameworthy.

Every year at this time I see editors being hauled over the coals at this page being reduced to making grovelling comments on the lines of "Yes, I shouldn't have done it, I just did it for fun, I'm very sorry and I won't do it again". I don't think behaviour here is any worse than that of the media (newspapers, television). One Saturday, April 1 in the 1980s (so not 1984 therefore) the London Guardian ran a story about a Brazilian watch manufacturer which had just produced a model which gave the time and direction for prayer to Mecca anywhere in the world on any day of the year. As I happened to be free and not far from the newspaper's office in the Gray's Inn Road I went round there. The concierge telephoned the journalist in question who admitted the story was a hoax and a profuse apology was made. I don't think anything further happened.

Getting upset about this sort of thing is counterproductive. I do vandal patrol and some of the crazy vandalism that some people introduce into Misplaced Pages just makes me laugh. A happy and peaceful Easter to all of you. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Rules for Fools? It lists some of the RfCs that have been started about April Fools mischief. It's always been a contentious topic. As for the "talk page stalker" discussion, I'll leave that to people who seem to care about this. But I do agree that having some perspective is important, both for the editors and the readers. Liz 11:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Not to get to "meta" on the OP, but I find it a bit ironic that the response to people starting long threads over trivial matters that shouldn't be contentious is then starting a long thread about starting a long thread over trivial matters. If the original complaints were trivial, and didn't need the attention they got, further complaints about the complaints are doubly trivial. Just sayin'. --Jayron32 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So, err, what's the incident that requires the notice of an administrator? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I object to the characterization of the talk page watcher discussion as an April Fools' joke. While you may think it's funny and no big deal, I assure you the issue is a very serious matter, which multiple editors have debated in that thread which has been open since February, and it is a much more detailed proposal than a simple redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You're using synthesis to impugn Liz. "Characterisation of the talk page watcher discussion as an April Fools' joke" is a product of your imagination, as is your suggestion that any of us "think it's funny and no big deal". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. The IP has issues with my edits, occasionally portraying them out of context. The "hunting animals, hunting people" quote in the original post was a direct response to their rather farcical comparison, "I think that you and NeilN are overthinking this. All the hurt I've seen relates to the description "wikistalking" and similar. Can you provide an actual example of an editor complaining about a picture of a big cat and accompanying stalking reference? I mean, plenty of women go on safari and I can't see any of them getting upset about the hunters talking about stalking the big game" --NeilN 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the 1930s German schoolchildren played happily with their Jewish classmates and invited them to their homes. Then along came the Hitler Youth and the German schoolchildren started telling their former friends they were bad people and they were not allowed to talk to them. If you can't see that hunting people (genocide) is not the same as hunting animals (collecting food) there's no hope for you. You've been asked (and failed) to provide evidence that there was some demand for this before you and others started going about saying how appalling this template was and it must be deprecated. You appear to have jumped into the issue of redirecting WP:STALKING to WP:HARASSMENT and used it as a lever to create disruption in areas which were working just fine. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Derek R Bullamore reported for unprovoked incivility

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

I recently made some politely and helpfully intended comments on User:Derek R Bullamore's talk page regarding MOS:ALLCAPS. Instead of being at all appreciative of having this MoS issue drawn to his attention, this apparently experienced editor instead responded with gratuitously patronising comments ending with "It would be a good thing if you stuffed yourself." which is another way of saying "go fuck yourself". No editor should have to tolerate this kind of incivility in response to trying to be helpful. Afterwriting (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"If you have also been doing all this on other articles then it would be good thing if you went back to them and corrected yourself. Thank you." seems rather patronising, and I'm not surprised you got it thrown back in your face. Squinge (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Although it "seems" patronising to you it was not. There was nothing patronising at all intended in my comments which were only intended as helpful advice. If I make any MoS mistakes then I appreciate being told so. As should all editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment was addressed to a contributor with nine years experience and 125,000 edits to his credit, and you really can't see how you were talking down to him in a condescending manner as if he was an ignorant newbie? And your first response to an unfavorable reply is to file an ANI complaint? I suggest you reflect on your own approach to interaction with others and decide whether it might be wise to withdraw your complaint. Squinge (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just an observation: Any time you correct a fellow editor, I don't think you should expect appreciation and gratitude. I'm not saying it never happens but it's not the first reaction most people have. Liz 14:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Patronising or not there's no call for an acceleration from "hey, could you fix this?" to "get stuffed". Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is an appeal to ANI as a first recourse, rather than a little introspection and a friendlier approach, really the best way to deal with this? If people think it is, then I despair. Squinge (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior by IP/editor

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

• 94.244.129.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

94.244.129.207 who is likely SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava editing while logged out, posted this coming off a 24 hour block. --NeilN 14:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And that edit was right after this one (notice the last sentence). --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for a week for harassment. I am pretty sure the IP is SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava, however, I do not feel confident enough to indef the user (their edits conform with WP:NOTTHERE, but they never logged in after I posted a warning).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit should prove that User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava is the IP and is using the username to avoid the block on the IP. --Taivo (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Account indef-blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Indefblocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

user:Wikiwikiman777 abusing AFC process

Based on an examination of contribs, I am convinced that Wikiwikiman777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been for some time following a pattern of (a) creating a draft using an IP or sock and then submitting it to AFC; (b) approving the draft himself and then moving it to mainspace. The articles in question are Unitary Theories of Memory, Elaborative Encoding, Alternative Explanations of the "Grandmother" Cell, and several more. Note the MOSCAP errors in all the titles; there are several other telltales, such as the IPs all coming from Michigan (the ones I looked up, anyway). This editor has been working this way since November 2013. The articles are actually not bad as far as I can tell -- I haven't examined them very closely though. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the old days when AfC was still in Misplaced Pages talk: space, the main reason we didn't want articles being moved to mainspace at random is because they wouldn't be picked up at NPP, so they would bypass the standard checks (A7 is an obvious one, but G12 is even more important, and reasonably common on AfC drafts). Today, with the Draft: space, I think moving from draft to mainspace is not really much different than assembling a userspace draft, then moving it to mainspace when it's ready. It's not using the Officially Authorized AfC Tools (TM), but it's not actually disruptive. I don't enough about the topic so I can't comment on whether Child Lying is a valid encyclopedic topic or original research masquerading as one, but it certainly looks to pass the speedy criteria. Ritchie333 15:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of socks is clearly deceptive, and anything deceptive is disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It only is if you value sockpuppetry above writing an encyclopedia, in my view. He might have just been accidentally editing while logged out.Ritchie333 16:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comments here are not helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the evidence of socking and abuse? Looking at the article creators, there's Ltucogpsych, an IP that geolocates to Michigan and has also edited Lawrence Technological University, and an IP that directly goes to LTU. The articles themselves have student editing stamped all over them. This just looks like people doing their homework. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Opabinia regalis has solved this mystery. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• The only thing I have to say is that the steps being followed here are entirely pointless as described by the OP. AFC is an option process. Any autoconfirmed editor is allowed to create an article in the mainspace at any time. Its not something we advertise to new users, for some interesting social-psychological reasons I won't get into here, but fundamentally there are no rules which require ANY new article to go through ANY approval process at ANY time. Anyone is allowed to create an article and just put it in the main article space. There's no reason to go through hoops to "pretend" to be two editors to "approve" one's own article through AFC. Just frigging create the article. Of course, it may also be summarily deleted if it doesn't meet proper standards (which is also true of AFC-created articles. No article is immune). If the disruption described by the OP is actually going on, it is doubly stupid: besides being the sort of WP:GAME violation to lead to a ban, it is an entirely worthless way to get an article in the main space. Just create it there. --Jayron32 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Opabinia's theory is that an instructor (in cognitive psychology, it would appear) has gotten his or her students to write articles in draft space, and then the instructor is checking them over before moving them to mainspace. That sounds like a good process to me if the instructor is more familiar with Misplaced Pages than the students are. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In that case, I agree. That's a quality idea, and also isn't a problem. --Jayron32 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is the theory. Looking at the articles, one might question the quality of the quality control. But the process of creation looks like a no harm, no foul situation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• A long and involved series of edits at Lock Ness Monster lead to this result. While not being an expert in the subject I don't see intentional destruction here. Edits of his I saw in other places are primarily deletions. GregKaye 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Let's not kid ourselves. This is wrong. If this user we're talking about here, used IPs to submit articles that he himself approved, it's indeed an abuse of the process. Now, even if they are encyclopaedic, the next question would be, why's he doing it? He's not self-satisfied with the articles he wrote, it's as easy as that. Bypassing a formal process is simply unfair. There's a reason we have AfC. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the idea here is that the instructor didn't write the articles, so submitting them directly from his/hr own account would have been taking credit for the work of others. The similarities between the articles would be because the instructor assigned the topics, specified the footnote style, etc. See the comments above. As far as AFC being a respectable process, despite the good intentions and hard work of its participants, it has (like so much of Misplaced Pages) grown into a bullshit bureaucracy, so bypassing its formal aspects to the extent possible is a good thing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 At this point you have two options: put the articles you feel are unacceptable up for AfD and get a consensus as to what to do with them, the second is open either a WP:SPI or thread at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard to see what people might suggest on behalf of this class. Hasteur (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Since all signs so far point to this being a class project, I suggest posting to the Education Noticeboard. Epic Genius (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

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

User:David Coburn MEP is currently under investigation at WP:AN3#User:David Coburn MEP reported by User:Nomoskedasticity for edit-warring (27 reversion so far)- there currently doesn't appear to be an admin looking into the case. In addition, an edit summary here implies they may wish to take legal action. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably not an actual legal threat, but that is some seriously bad COI editing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying that an editor cannot edit "with impunity" may suggest that they may take any number of different actions, not limited to legal action. They may make a big deal about it in the press or complain about the editor at ANI or any number of other things. I don't think this is clear or specific enough to count under WP:NLT. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, so thought bringing it here would be safest. Either way, could someone go to the edit warring board. They're now on 28 reversions, and I think most of he 10 people who've reverted their COI edits don't want to anymore for fear of breaking WP:3RR. Also, they've been informed multiple times about COI/removed sourced content/adding unsourced content/contacting ], and they are under investigation for sockpuppetry too. Hopefully someone will eventually block them and end this madness. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point the edits must constitute mere vandalism and therefore not be subject to WP:EW? _Fortuna 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the user has been blocked for edit warring, so that issue is resolved. There may be other ones, particularly with the username; I'm expecting the user will post something to their user talk page shortly about the block, and we'll proceed from there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be worth looking at the article for BLP violations. From a cursory review I'm finding a few potential ones. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Phil A. Fry

Phil A. Fry has exhibited a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. I myself was not aware of this until last year when I examined the edits he has made.

Here is a list of the transgressions he has made:

• Unexplained content removal:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=654357528
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Evil_Con_Carne&diff=prev&oldid=646564663
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=646455056 (later tried to justify it with WP:SEASON, but misinterpreted it)
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Codename:_Kids_Next_Door&diff=prev&oldid=645877550
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dexter%27s_Laboratory&diff=prev&oldid=645855000
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=639516651
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons&diff=prev&oldid=654983326
• Unsourced, unexplained date changes:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=635477715
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon&diff=prev&oldid=636355232
• Vandalism:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Cartoon_Network_programming&diff=prev&oldid=651088426
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Boomerang&diff=654945322&oldid=652694492
• Restoring problematic versions of articles:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cartoon_Network&diff=prev&oldid=651075552

He also goes to "list of programs broadcast by" pages and simplifies dates to simply a year range for no apparent reason. If we use years only, people will think a show started airing or stopped airing at the start or end of a year. We should only be using a year range if exact dates are not known.

So, should Phil A. Fry be blocked for all this? ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 19:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just found a strange edit he made to CBS, where he added a nonexistent template. Rather odd. Stevie is the man! 04:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism, but I think Phil should start using more edit summaries and adding sources to support his edits, or else be blocked for competence. Epic Genius (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tim Zukas and rail transport articles

Tim Zukas (talk · contribs) has a habit of making large undocumented edits to articles. These combine factual changes and stylistic changes; this is typical. He does not, in general, use helpful or indicative edit summaries (see the history of Overland Limited (UP train). This behavior, including his frequent IP editing, is documented at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, although I had no involvement with the creation of that page. I want to make clear that I'm here in my capacity as an editor; I have not used my tools in this dispute.

The specific dispute that brings me here concerns Overland Limited (UP train). I created this article in August 2014; the only other major editor is Centpacrr (talk · contribs). Beginning in February, first as an IP and then as himself, he began making large-scale changes in the pattern described above. Many edit summaries were misleading or non-existent. Examples include:

• , which according to the edit summary was a revert of but made other stylistic changes and added a whole new completely unsourced section
• the edit summary says "several corrections" (and indicates an intention to edit war) but again mixes stylistic changes and content changes. Note that sources are only removed, and not added.
• as above, with the claim "your version has the errors, so you're the one that needs to explain. (Can't be done, tho.)" but no direct indication of what these errors were.
• among other wholesale revisions, actually removes the entire footnotes section and {{reflist}} template, and then revert-warred while denying he'd done any such thing.

This dispute had gotten out of hand and discussions on Talk:Overland Limited (UP train) were not fruitful. Centpacrr and I went back and forth with Tim Zukas, especially in Talk:Overland_Limited_(UP_train)#.22Corrections.22, about what these "errors" were, what sources he had, and so on. I will acknowledge that he was in the right on several issues, but extracting this information was a slow, painful process. I opened a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which you can see at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Overland_Limited_.28UP_train.29.23.22Corrections.22. With the kind assistance of Thibbs (talk · contribs) we identified five major points of contention and invested a solid month (with breaks) in discussing them, often in considerable detail. This was my first encounter with DRN and I rather liked it. Thibbs closed the discussion on April 1. Almost immediately Tim Zukas began making the same types of edits as before: . It's the same mixture of stylistic changes, factual changes, and removal of sources.

I think Centpacrr and I are at wits end here. This is a collaborative environment but Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway. It requires extraordinary effort to engage with this user. I'd like to ask that he, at the very least, be banned from Overland Limited (UP train). A more general topic ban from rail transport articles may be appropriate as he has engaged in similar edits on City of San Francisco (train) (see ) and City of Denver (train) (). Failing that, I'd appreciate any guidance on how to move this issue forward. Thank you to anyone who read this far. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Tim Zukas will not meet us halfway"

What he means is, I correct the errors that they have put in, then they put them back. Centpacrr wants me to explain the corrections-- naturally I figure he should explain his uncorrections. He should try, that is-- it can't actually be done.

"we identified five major points of contention"

He's referring to the five examples I gave of their errors. They were examples, not a complete list, and Centpacrr's latest version has lots more. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Is your desired outcome then that you'll remove and/or rewrite anything you don't like or disagree with, then other editors will read your version and then add references which support it? I don't think that's how this project works. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thibbs pointed out to me that my creation of the LTA case page, Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, was out of process, since Tim Zukas has never been banned, let alone blocked under his main account. I had been chasing down disruption from IPs at rail and air transportation articles, starting from the Boeing 314 Clipper article, and bit by bit, the disruption pattern pointed the way to Tim Zukas making a huge number of edits logged out, especially favoring a logged-out status when he wants to remove a bunch of text from an article. So the LTA case page was intended to document disruption from IPs based near me in Oakland and Berkeley, California, but it ended up documenting the behavior of Tim Zukas. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

However, Tim Zukas was blocked as IP 75.16.27.73 last year, blocked by The Bushranger for three months for "Long-term disruptive, nonconstructive editing without any discussion." Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

While User:Tim Zukas made a couple of useful suggestions, he also introduced a variety of other unsourced claims that when I researched them and came up with relevant reliable sources proved his speculations to be completely incorrect. Over the past month I have refined and expanded the article in a sandbox while the DNR discussion was going on and verified this material citing more the 20 new reliable and verifiable sources to support the material I added along with posting seven new images. When the DNR was closed I transferred the updated article that I had been developing to the mainspace. Within less than a day, however, User:Tim Zukas has already made three massive unexplained deletions which are, as usual, unsupported by any sources or citations. When asked to specify what he considers to be errors -- and to supply sources to support his claims -- as usual he never does so. His only response was a completely unhelpful comment that "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." (see here) Unfortunately this is not the first run in that I (and many other editors) have had with this user in aviation and railroad transportation articles over a period of years now in which he has exhibited this same disruptive behavior. Centpacrr (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I too had a run-in with Tim Zukas back in May 2013 on the San Francisco International Airport article. At that time he made a host of changes without any discussion or consensus. When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility. Considering all the contentious and sockpuppet IP edits that they have been involved in, it is really time for an extended block. David J Johnson (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing that an editor who's been here 5 years would make such a clueless as "The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 314 article is now in its fourth semi-protection (this time for six months) exclusively because of this user's similar disruptive mass unsupported deletions using at least four sockpuppet anonymous IP's. It was not until after I had requested the current semi-protection that I was able to deduce that User:Tim Zukas and these sockpuppet IPs were one in the same. He also did the same with the Braniff International Airways article in which the editor he kept reversing claiming unspecified "errors" was a retired Braniff Captain who was also the Founder and President of Braniff Airways Foundation and Braniff Preservation Group, LLC which is essentially the airline's historical society!!! Centpacrr (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Zukas has a lot of 'splainin' to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"When I queried these, all I got was a barrage of abuse and incivility."

Show everyone the barrage of abuse.

""The sources might be correct, but the sources aren't writing the article." At the very least, that comment needs an explanation from its author."

Perhaps half of the numerous errors in Centpacrr's latest version of the article are misreadings of the source. A couple examples-- in the History section he says

"Lucius Beebe contends that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure to coerce better performance from the Chicago and North Western, and in fact a section of the Overland continued to use the C&NW during the period."

Anyone who reads Beebe's book can see that he contended nothing about the UP's motives and didn't claim no know anything about them. He offered that speculation and made it clear it was a guess.

In the Name section Centpacrr says

"The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden though to Chicago on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special"

No one knows where he got that idea-- the timetable in Beebe's book shows it running Council Bluffs to Oakland. The schedule wasn't fast enough for the one set of cars to make a round trip to Chicago in a week.

Presumably you commenters don't claim to be experts on the Overland Limited, and apparently you're inclined to think Centpacrr's errors aren't errors. Probably you don't have his sources to check. And sometimes it is the source that's wrong-- in the back of Signor's book Phelps said the "Limited" disappeared from the name in July 1947, but as I said before the timetables show that CNW and UP dropped the name in 1946 or earlier and SP dropped it in May 1947 or earlier. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is all beside the point because you've never (or almost never) been willing to add sources to articles. Your habit of massive unexplained removals is the issue at stake here, and you've only been forthcoming after long, tedious discussions on talk pages and elsewhere. This behavior is discourteous. Centpacrr and I are not the only ones who think so. We're not the only ones who've asked you to stop. That are you are ostensibly right on various minor factual points doesn't change this because it required enormous effort to extract from you (a) what your actual concerns were and (b) what your sources were. Let's not get distracted in some abstract discussion about the operation of a long discontinued train. The issue here is your discourtesy toward other editors and your disregard for the established editing norms on this project. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have moved my earlier response to the Zukas posting above to the Overland Limited's talk page because, as Mackensen correctly points out above, it is unrelated to the basic ANI issue here which is this user's long standing disruptive behavior and practice of making massive, unsupported deletions of content and sources in many railroad and aviation related articles as well as his frequently employing massive anonymous IP sockpuppetry to avoid detection and hide his identity while doing so. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

For background information, there was a long-running thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard about this article, Overland Limited (UP train), for more than three weeks, in which the participants were User:Tim Zukas, User:Mackensen, and User:Centpacrr, and in which User:Thibbs was the mediator. The thread seemed to go reasonably well, but went much longer than the usual time for threads at DRN, which normally deals with issues in one to two weeks. The mediator, Thibbs, then suggested, and the parties agreed, to take further discussion back to the talk page. Within a day after the thread was closed, this report was filed. I have nothing substantive to add, but that is the recent history. If the parties are willing to resume commenting on content and not on contributors, formal mediation might still be available, but not if there are issues of conduct including of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I think for all the reasons stated above by myself, Mackensen, David J Johnson, Binksternet, the long time history of abuse of User:Zukas as documented in the LTA, his intransigence during the recent DRN, and the wide number of articles in which this user has engaged in his pattern of similar disruptive editing over the past five years, that "mediation" would not be a fruitful exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a note here (since I've been mentioned a few times now) that I won't be commenting on this case. I'm a hardliner against comments from a mediation being used in an evidentiary manner and really my only experience with Tim Zukas comes from the DRN proceeding. I know DRN isn't quite the same as full mediation but it's close enough to the same idea to make me uncomfortable commenting. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thibbs, your yeomanlike efforts in the DRN over the past month were very much appreciated, and the eventual failure to reach a resolution through it were certainly not your fault. The issues with this editor are long standing and involve his conflicts with many other articles and editors. Mackensen and I had hoped that trying the DRN might change that but alas it only served to prove that the basic problem is a much more pervasive and fundamental one which is largely unrelated to this single article's content. So please accept Mackensen and my thanks for your efforts. It is folks like you that really make the project go. Centpacrr (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose air & rail topic ban for Tim Zukas

I think Tim Zukas is too anti-collegial to be allowed to edit here, but rather than suggest a block I propose instead a topic ban on the kinds of articles he edits with the greatest fervor: air and rail transportation, broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support This would seem to me to be an appropriate next step although what I expect will happen is that this user will (as he has in the past) engage in block evasion by reverting to editing from the many anonymous IP sockpuppets he has used in the past. Fortunately, however, these are also now fairly easy to identify as they all geolocate to the East San Francisco Bay Area either as Comcast Communications IPs where he lives in Oakland, or to static IPs assigned to the Berkeley Public Library and the University of California-Berkeley (including several to the Office of the UC's President), a school which he apparently also attended in the late 1960s. If this happens then it may be necessary to request semi-protection of individual articles that he disrupts such is the current case with the Boeing 314 entry so that they can't be edited by unregistered IP users. Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment by Centpacrr 1: Regretfully, as Mackensen correctly notes (below), the utter chutzpah of this user's most recent edit shows me that he really has no intention of respecting WP's policies and guidelines, atmosphere of collegiality, assuming good faith, or abiding by the consensus of the community. In addition I have still never seen this user ever add a single source or citation in any article supporting anything he has either added or changed. Instead he often either removes sources and citations posted by other editors, and/or makes changes in the text that no longer accurately reflect sources and citations that he leaves in.

This user is clearly intelligent, interested in the topics of air and rail transportation, has a good deal of useful knowledge in the subject, and is apparently an experienced railfan photographer. However I find it puzzling that such a person -- especially one who has a demonstrated long standing and continuing association with such a great academic institution as the University of California at Berkeley from which my grandfather graduated in 1914 -- to be so dismissive of the value and necessity of supporting material in WP entries by citing reliable, verifiable sources. By his instant action in again rejecting this basic tenant of building an encyclopedia as well as refusing to work with any other members of the WP community, this user has, in my view, waived any remaining benefit of the doubt as to his intentions to ever do so but has instead clearly declared a personal "it's my way or the highway" approach to the project.

If Mr. Zukas were willing to cooperate collegially with the rest of the editors on WP -- especially when asked to explain and support his views -- then I suspect he would be a very valuable contributor to the project. The goal in building each entry is, after all, to "get it right" and that is a cooperative, collaborative process. While this user may be very knowledgeable, if he is not willing to work within that process it tends to only defeat rather than advance the project. If Mr. Zukas is not willing to do so and continues his present demonstrated disruptive editing practices, then perhaps a period of being blocked may also be appropriate in addition to a topic ban from editing aviation and railroad related articles until such time as he is willing to work with the community as opposed to at cross purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2: Unfortunately Mr. Zukas has elected instead to double down Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, with regret. I don't think this discussion has made any impression on Tim Zukas, given this edit just made with the blithe edit summary "Usual corrections." Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 1 above Centpacrr (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Mr Zukas has been given multiple opportunities to edit and communicate with other editors in a spirit of civility and constructive editing. This he has patently failed to do - plus editing (sockpuppeting) from various IP addresses, as well as his own account. Misplaced Pages is, in the main, a good example team work: Mr Zukas has failed to ever accept co-operation. David J Johnson (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• See my Additional Comment by Centpacrr 2 above Centpacrr (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose immediate block of Tim Zukas for continued disruptive editing & sockpuppetry

• Subject user now also in violation of 3RR, continued disruptive editing, renewed sockpuppetry: Subject user Tim Zukas is now also in violation of WP:3RR for making a third mass unexplained and unsupported deletion of material and sources (see here) since the opening of this ANI, this time using one of his demonstrated sockpuppet IPs (128.32.11.112) to hide his identity which geolocates like many of his others to the University of California-Berkeley. I now propose an immediate block from editing of this user, a long term topic ban on editing air and rail transportation articles broadly construed, and long term (six month) semi-protection of the articles Overland Limited (UP train), City of San Francisco (train), and City of Denver (train). Centpacrr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Certainly Tim Zukas is edit warring, and he's violating WP:MULTIPLE by editing both logged in and logged out on the same article. I don't see that he has violated 3RR specifically, despite the continued edit warring which must be addressed. I suggest page protection combined with blocking of the IP and the Tim Zukas account. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Additional comment by Centpacrr: User Zukas has made five more massive unexplained and unsupported deletions of restored material and sources on the Overland Limited (UP train) article between April 2 (the day this ANI was opened by Mackensen) and today, April 6 (, , , , and ) including three between Saturday evening (April 4) and Monday morning (today, April 6). This indicates to me that despite the previous almost month long DRN and the opening of this process, this user has no interest or intention of cooperating and/or collaborating with the rest of the WP community in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet's long-term malice

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

I was just about to dismiss Misplaced Pages altogether after yesterday's incident: , but after seeing this article created by User:Binksternet: , it became very clear to me that I'm not the first and probably not the last victim of his cyberbullying. After clicking on the provided links, you will realize that when he is unable to get the upper hand, User:Binksternet has a hardcore habbit of attacking editors based on fictional evidence. I'm certain that User:Binksternet had attacked other editors in the past as well, but I didn't bother going through his contributions history to link them here for this report.

Binksternet (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

I will try to be more specific in this report on User:Binksternet than I was the last time: , by explaining how he has rather successfully curbed my own Misplaced Pages editing efforts. It started with small and insignificant reverts of my edits, which I now think may have been his standard attempts of discouragement: , . At the time, I was copy-editing Freed from Desire, and had run into an edit-warrior there who first reverted my efforts. That led me to file a request on the general noticeboard for a watch on the article: , after which I've removed the report due to my intuitive doubts of a positive outcome: . About 12 hours later, I assume right after discovering the removed report from my contributions history, User:Binksternet brought the big guns: , . User:Binksternet also came to my own talkpage with a personal baseless attack: , and he had dug up an old-settled dispute that he thought is worth inflaming again - reverting me and the other editor that I had previously settled the dispute with: . After filing a report on him in desperation: , User:Binksternet came in with another flame and with no excuse for any of his actions: .

User:Binksternet is obviously not a rational person who assumes good faith, as he has repeatedly demonstrated his trolling nature and his malicious intents throughtout my own dealings with him. Either something has to be done about this editor, or Misplaced Pages is not The 💕 as advertised in the upper left corner - if a certain group of individuals has a legitimate claim on this website as their private property, then let that be known and I will gladly leave. Otherwise, people like User:Binksternet should not be allowed to freely limit editing freedoms of others. Therefore, I propose an additional research on User:Binksternet if necessary, and finally disabling editing privileges from User:Binksternet's IP address and his associated user-account(s). I just hope that this case won't be closed with "Nothing to see here, folks" explanation again: . Thank you for your time. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• All of Binksternet's edits that you've diffed are in order, within Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and well-explained in the edit summaries. By opening this thread you are merely drawing attention to yourself and inviting a WP:BOOMERANG block of your IP (for opening two baseless and ill-inetentiond ANI threads about the same editor within 24 hours of each other). Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: That sounds reasonable to me, one of us should definitely be banned. I will leave the decision of which one up to Misplaced Pages adminitrators, because I won't back down until something is done about this. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• How would an editor who's only been here 2 weeks know anything about any user's "long term" approach to things? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: That is my own assumption based on the provided links. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your provided links are all from March 31 and April 1. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block this IP for opening two time-wasting and baseless threads in rapid succession

Proposal: Block (longterm) this IP for opening two time-wasting and baseless threads (this current one and this one yesterday) about Binksternet within 24 hours of each other simply because he didn't get his way yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP is being WP:Disruptive, but IP addresses are never indefinitely WP:Blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22, re-worded accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block (time limited per Flyer22) with thanks to Binksternet. The contested edits look to be spam/SEO cruft that Binksternet has been cleaning up. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comment, IP. Report on you says that you're from California: , just like User:Binksternet's own userpage does. I wasn't aware that you were doing the "cleaning" on Misplaced Pages. Thank you for coming forward with this information, and elaborating User:Binksternet's true intentions. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - Time-wasting troll-like behavior, personal attacks (" is obviously not a rational person"), WP:IDHT, near-harassment of long-time editor with vexatious AN/I reports, all on top of probably being a sock (yeah, I know, SPI is that way, I'm saying it anyway) BMK (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• The two threads were opened at least 24-hours apart from each other, and the previous one was poorly formed with no proposal from my side. Anyway, I wasn't aware that just about anyone can close opened cases here. Is there a noticeboard where only administrators can do that? 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Adminsitrator privileges only extend to the use of their tools, such as blocking, protecting, and deleting. Any uninvolved editor in good standing may, in good faith, close any discussion which has reached a consensus conclusion and may summarize that consensus. --Jayron32 01:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• IP, see Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm looking for a more formal noticeboard to resolve this. Please provide a link if there is one. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• No such thing for this case. BMK (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Velenje vandal for the OP's history of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

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

Implied legal threat CBombWorthy41

User:CBombWorthy41 has made an implied here. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the edit correctly (and the actual diff for it is this), CBombWorth41 is reporting that a person named Kent Hovind on a video on YouTube says that edits (presumably to the article Kent Hovind) have to made according to that person's demands, or that person will include Misplaced Pages in a lawsuit. Unless CBombWorthy41 is Kent Hovind, that's not a legal threat, it's a report of a threat of legal action made off-Wiki. I doubt that there's anything actionable in this, unless I'm misunderstanding the situation. BMK (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, seeing as they are one of many SPAs at this AFD discussion making the same threats, they are least guilty of being meat puppets.Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Implied legal threat LoneStar1776

Has made a legal threat here. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Again about Kent Hovind, which is at AfD. I do indeed think that the statement "Wiki will be held accountable for false and libel comments" made by LoneStart1776 is a legal threat and should be dealt with as such. BMK (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Implied legal threat WikiUser2k15

Has made a legal threat here Flat Out let's discuss it 02:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this is also about the Kent Hovind AfD, I've combined them together.In this one, WikiUser2k15 throws around the word "slanderous" a lot, but there's no mention of legal action that I can see, more of a call for Misplaced Pages to do the right thing as seen by the commenter. I'd say it's borderlinem but not actionable. BMK (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

All three of these accounts were created today. Two of the three have just the one edit reported here, and the last had 4 edits, all to the AfD. These are clearly SPAs created for the purpose of commentingabout Pastor Kent Hovind. Whether they are Horvind himself or followers is irrelevant, since they're either WP:Sockpuppets or WP:Meatpuppets. Considering that, the edits that I characterized as borderline or non-actionable take on a new coloring. All of these accounts should probably be blocked for meatpuppetry, and violation of WP:NLT, in my opinion. Let's see if any admins agree. BMK (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, your nomination of Kent Hovind for deletion was a pretty stupid thing to do. We don't delete artciels because we don't like what the person says or stands for, or because we do like it, we delete them because they don't meet our standards for notability. BMK (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was a procedural nomination. It should be noted that there is canvassing on the LoneStar1776 YouTube channel, asking people to "vote" for deletion by pasting text including the phrase "libel and defamatory". (Click on the "show more" tab in the info section.)BiologicalMe (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or shouldn't an OTRS request that mentions legal matter be referred to WMF Legal, and not provoke an AfD? Seems like that kind of response only encourages legal threats. BMK (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the email of course, but what are the chances the guy pointed out specifically what he thought was wrong? Also what are the chances that what he did point out wasn't using a reliable source? I think 0% total on that. I think the AfD was more to poke fun than anything. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this with the OTRS team now. Nakon 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The guide on legal:

Implicit threats of law suits - OK to act on them? Yes. OK to respond? Yes, and attempt to handle. For implicit threats of law suits, such as "there may be legal concerns about ...." or "Blah blah blah is libel!" with no actual threat of a law suit, you do not need to send it to the LCA team. Doing so will only slow handling down, as it will be a week or two generally before it is reviewed and it will then be sent back to OTRS. Instead, send it to the Quality, Courtesy, Vandalism, or Schools queue as appropriate.

Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but you also don't open an AfD, validating the legal threat, and empowering the person who made the threat. BMK (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

After review, this article's AFD has been closed as a SNOW keep. Nakon 04:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer request for Munjanes

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

Hello, I am relaying a user's request for accepting the Standard Offer from the UTRS queue. On an initial review, Munjanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not created any new sockpuppets since June 2014. Per the standard 6 month guidelines, it appears that this user may eligible for the Standard Offer. The user's request for unblock is reproduced below:

Thanks for your consideration, Nakon 03:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'll not act unilaterally yet, but I Support an unblock per WP:STANDARDOFFER and WP:ROPE. I see no evidence this isn't sincere, and perhaps he's grown up in 6 months. I'm good with unblocking him, and if no one beats me to it, after sufficient opportunity for others to comment, I probably will do so. --Jayron32 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) unblocks, please either update the user through UTRS (#13276) or let me know so I can send an update. Nakon 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlesss, I sm missing somethings the user in question is a sock of User:SuperNepoznat, so why would the unblock apply to the sock over the main account?--67.68.208.170 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If the user wishes to disown the master account, I don't see any reason why their "newer" account can't be used instead. Nakon 05:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Nakon, we don't force users to any particular account (or even to a single account, WP:SOCK lists many good-faith reasons to maintain multiple accounts). The block/ban was placed on the person. If the person wants to return to Misplaced Pages, and if they ALSO get consensus to be allowed to do so, there is no prejudice towards doing so under any one specific account. If they want to use any particular existing account, a new account, or no account at all, IF (and this is a big if) they are allowed to edit again, then there are no specific restrictions on which account to use to do so, no more so than any other user in deciding how, and which, and for what reasons, to use an account. It would be a matter of good faith for the OP to stick to a single account (given the WP:SOCK violations before), but it isn't our place to decide what their username must be. --Jayron32 05:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - a reblock is easy if necessary; hopefully it won't be. OhNoitsJamie 13:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - worst case scenario, we let back in someone who resumes their disruption, and the admins who will undoubtedly watch them like a hawk will pull the block trigger again. Best case scenario; we have a good-faith contributor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor is changing rules to fit his ideology

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

User:Malik Shabazz is following me around – and changing the rules as he goes along. if he does not like the opinion piece then he says opinion is not valid. When I seek to remove opinions, he blocks it. Same goes for sources. Not fair and I seek help as its not within Misplaced Pages rulings. Richie1921 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Examples? You're not really going into any detail. Erpert 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the pair of them edit warring over the page and protected it. I left them both a short note to go to the talk page. Richie1921 you forgot to notify Malik Shabazz about this, see the notice above. I've done it for you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Richie1921, please read WP:BOOMERANG. You've violated 1RR at New Israel Fund (in fact, you may have violated 3RR there) and you've been edit-warring at Fenton Communications and Richard Edelman. As I recommended two hours ago, please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:BLP. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz: You described "garbage sources" and speaking rude when inviting rules. What you call "edit warring" entails me removing items unsourced here:Fenton Communications also you call it edit warring when you say PR Week is not a worthy source when I post it, yet when someone else does and I remove it you object – here: Richard Edelman

Richie1921 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Richie1921 has surprising knowledge of wikipedia for a new editor. Even brought someone to an administrative board. So far he/she has done nothing except disrupt multiple articles. I suggest that an uninvolved admin watch him/her and hit the block button at the next transgression. Zero 09:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have no strong views about Malik Shabazz but I have known her/him from Talk:Israel make positive contributions that have met approval of all editors. S/he is shown to be confrontational but I have not researched the justifiability of interventions taken. The side that I have seen of Malik is of an editor that can invest into developing solid content. GregKaye 21:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Richie1921 was blocked for edit warring, based on a review of contributions to date, which are entirely inconsistent with a new user, as noted above, I have upped to indef. We don't need more warriors in this subject area. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Incivility by Rtc

Rtc made 2 edits , to Germanwings Flight 9525 changing the summary of the info box to read "murder-suicide", both edits were reverted as unreferenced. Rtc alleges that they provided an appropriate reference , which is in German, however the Google translation doesn't seem to back this up .

Background aside the reason (as an editor who has chosen to stay out of the dispute for fear making things worse) I bring the issue here, is due to Rtc opening up a discussion on the articles talk page in a very combative frame of mind with what I can only describe as a foul mouthed rant . Their last comment on the talk page was to demand that other editors include their preferred change Rtc was given 5 warnings in a space of 20mins for personal attacks/ incivility , mainly by Ahunt with one by Prhartcom. The general tone of their contributions to the discussion seems to be one of an unwillingness to co-operate or to accept that others may disagree and that they are in a minority on issue in question.

It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50' whose first edit was to complain about the blocking of another editor (due to personal attacks) in a previous discussion about the same issue , their only edits have been to this article . Their 2 contributions to the talk page include the deletion of one of Rtc's comments and replacing it with on of their own , and one in support of Rtc (the only editor to do so).

I am aware that another involved editor has allready expressed their support for the issue to be raised here (albeit qualified by Rtc making the change again) .

Rtc will be informed that the issue has been raised here as soon as this case is submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I have now informed Rtc . --wintonian 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If sanctions are preventive not punitive, I think this is premature, per this. Although I sometimes wish sanctions could be punitive, if only for the deterrent value. There would have been a better incivility case a few hours before my comment, sorry about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I hear you, but as I understand it sanctions aren't necessary the only option available, and a resolution doesn't require there to be sanctions. Beside it's a pity 'preventative sanctions' would not have prevented the tirade of bad language that the discussion started with. --wintonian 05:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that would have been a viable option then. But people waited a little too long to pull the trigger, and I went and spoiled things by ending the discussion (I think). Unless someone new wants to jump in in support of Rtc's position, I think the discussion is dead. As for non-sanction options, you're referring to the slap on the wrist "stop doing that"? I have yet to see that have any beneficial effect. As far as we know, Rtc has already "stopped doing that" in this case. He has been around long enough to know that that sort of behavior violates policy, that knowledge didn't stop him in this case, and it's pointless to simply refer him to a policy that he's already aware of. If there's another option I'm missing, I'm all ears. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your point Mandruss, as he had stopped (finally) and throughout the whole thing did not attempt to edit war his change. But to be honest, my waiting was more out of laziness (WP:TWINKLE doesn't have an ANI script ) Ending the discussion was good, it wasn't going anywhere from the start, he did not seem to have any interest in anything except winning some argument. I would feel more sympathetic, but Rtc is not a new editor. I would expect him to know how important WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS are, regardless of whether he agrees or not. ― Padenton|✉   06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That was one of the reasons why I didn't do so earlier as well. The other was that I was waiting for someone more involved to 'pull the trigger'. If this was a new editor then I might of suggested WP:DRN, but in general I don't think issues around editor conduct are appropreat there. --wintonian 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment uninvolved, except for attempting to figure out what would be a good short summary in the early days. I've added a comment asking people to discuss on talk before changing the infobox - these lines have often been a point of contention in the early days of a frequently edited article. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment as an editor (with a seven year editing history) who attempted to update the Germanwings 9525 article to no avail, I can understand and empathise with editor Rtc's frustrations. The pompous highhandedness of certain Misplaced Pages editors can often drive another to incivility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with a seven year editing history, you should know this: If you feel you have a valid complaint, bring it in a separate thread; but there is no pompous highhandedness exemption in WP:CIVIL. (I have not interacted previously with you, so it is not my pompous highhandness to which you refer.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Rtc is an editor with a fairly substantial history of hostile interactions. His/her profanity and personal attacks on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525, even after repeated warnings, in an attempt to get his/her own way on wording in the article made meaningful discussion impossible. This user seems to have a history of this problem and action is warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am fairly new to editing Misplaced Pages... Never done so before. And it amazes me to see that some people seemingly try to push their own agenda when editing it, as if they were Misplaced Pages's owners. Several other articles name the thing muder-suicide by pilot, but for some reason there are a few editors strongly opposed to it. And despite the many sources clearly pointing to the fact that the pilot committed suicide and thus killed everybody else in the plane, they keep on editing it in a shady way to downplay his role in the tragedy. I'm sorry to say, but I'm really sick of this. I've been a reader of Misplaced Pages for years, and always thought the info found here to be reliable... But then, when it comes to this article, it doesn't matter that every single news source out there are pointing to murder-suicide, because a handful of editors keep changing it back to "Deliberate flight into terrain" lol! and then they bring this discussion to here... Sounds like censorship to me, sorry to say, guys! 179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

and by the way... Maybe he wasn't too civil with his comment, but I'm also kind of mad at the way the editing is taking place. Why are some editors reverting every single change when it comes to murder-suicide if all news and the authorities point to that??? You keep talking about consensus... But it's good to talk about that when the consensus is formed by the same small group of people... RTC probably got mad and posted some "bad words", so what? IMHO the way some editors are working on that article (seemingly trying to conceal the fact that it was murder-suicide) show no respect to the victims. I'm truly disappointed with Misplaced Pages. 179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Now look at this "It may also be worth mentioning the interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50' " You must be joking if you are trying to imply we are the same people. I have edited the article because I'm disgusted at the way some are trying to conceal the fact it was murder-suicide. I'm from Brazil, and as far as I can tell the guy who complained about the punishment of some other editor is from the UK... Don't come up with false accusations, it only proves the fact that you are being censors here rather than contributors. 179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to imply anything and I am quite happy to assume your edits are sincere and of good faith. However it also appeared to me that other editors might find them relevant to the discussion - or they may not. It is always unfortunate when new editors get caught up in things like this, for that I am happy to offer my apologies. Although in my humble opinion, criticizing the block of another user wasn't perhaps the best way to make your first edit. --wintonian 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There is an ongoing investigation into this crash. Misplaced Pages can't contain original research on what the situation looks like but reports what reliable sources can document. Coverage of recent events usually changes and deepens as time passes and more details emerge from official investigations. Liz 12:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! :) That's why I proposed the article to name it "suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot; under investigation", but those editors are clearly opposed to it. Now look at the way they have written it: "deliberate flight into terrain"... Deliberate by who, we should ask. "suspected murder-suicide by co-pilot; under investigation" not only finds its support in several reliable sources mentioning the tragegy/accident, but also makes it clear that the murder-suicide is both suspected and still under investigation. The editors involved are fighting over something pretty obvious: all current evidence points to the fact that it was indeed a murder-suicide by the mentally weak co-pilot, and the guy planned it in advance, so he clearly had the intention of killing himself and everybody else inside the ill-fated plane. I really hope that someone with a more neutral stand than those editors above take over and prevent them from edit-warring and reverting every single part of the article that does not comply with their personal info. since they accused me of being those two other guys... Let me accuse them as well: I think they are working for Lufthansa and are trying to conceal the fact that the company neglected that one of their pilots had a history of suicidal thoughts!!! lol -179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As Liz said, we don't debate what we "think" or what we believe "is obvious" we wait for reliable sources and we summarise what those sources say. Rtc could do with some time away from editing to read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:CIVIL Flat Out let's discuss it 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We also do not come to this page to resolve content disputes, which is what you're talking about. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I THINK the same is true for those other editors involved. They should start by reading the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Instead of pointing their fingers at someone, they should look at themselves first, because the way the are acting is no less offending than RTC's - -179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong venue for debating content changes to the article, that should be discussed on the talk page. This discussion is about one editor's abusive behaviour and whether action needs to be taken on that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. Well, my opinion is that he shouldn't be punished. If he's to be punished, then let's punish all other editors involved as well. He may have sounded harsh, but that was probably a reaction out of his frustration, which was caused in the first place because of the way those editors are pushing their own agendas in that article, as if they were owners of Misplaced Pages or something. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There was only one editor using profanity and being uncivil. WP:CIVIL is a requirement and you should not be making excuses for his/her bad behaviour and blaming it on other editors who were trying to have a polite debate. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

179.153.241.50, if you think that there has been misconduct by editors that violates Misplaced Pages standards, you need to provide evidence (diffs) that support your claim. Otherwise, your words, if directed at specific editors, could be seen as personal attacks. If you need help creating diffs, see Help:Diff for guidance but you might consider opening up a new case rather than adding more information on to this one. Also know that if you post a new discussion thread at AN/I (or really any noticeboard), your own behavior might be examined at the same time. Liz 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your reply. I don't know how all of that works, and I have little energy to waste arguing with them... That's why I didn't even bother using an account to post here. This environment looks way too hostile to newcomers, and sadly I have no interest in joining it, because those arguments are extremely frustrating, and so is the way those people behave. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an obvious attempt to get me blocked merely because I am arguing against the outlandish views of a small group of editors that attempt to censor from the article the fact that the case is highly suspected to be murder-suicide, enforcing the completely unsourced (and unsourceable) phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" instead. The editors do not even deny that many reliable sources say so, for example:

• "A European official government official with detailed knowledge of the investigation said that Lubitz's actions amount to 'premeditated murder.'" CNN
• "The pilot is suspected of intentionally flying a Germanwings plane into the French Alps in an apparent murder-suicide."telegraph
• "this appears to be a case of murder-suicide"BBC
• "Murder-suicide by plane: What drove Lubitz to do it?"Washington Post
• "Andreas Lubitz: Co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 'wanted to destroy plane in suicide and mass murder mission'"independent
• "murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz"mirror
• "The Germanwings Mass Murder–Suicide Shows the Importance of Depression Intervention"new republic
• "German murder-suicide pilot Andreas Lubitz" NY Post

(There are many more.)

However, the group of editors claim that the fact that an overwhelming number of reliable sources highly suspect this to be a case of murder-suicide is insignificant, because of supposedly "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" (19:23, 2 April 2015) and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that", with User:Padenton pointing to his personal, apparently more reliable "knowledge" that "The difference between deliberate flight and 'mass murder' is because 'murder' has a specific definiton, requiring malicious intent towards the victims". When I clearly refute this claim (as well as several others), he falls silent and User:Mandruss begins a meta-discussion (00:17, 3 April 2015). After he has lost that discussion, too, it seems now they are trying to get me blocked, using WP:CIVIL as a pretext to silence a well-argued criticism of their views. Concerning this pretext, I can only repeat what I already said during the discussion: "Learn to distinguish between attacks on your person and attacks on your arguments" --rtc (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is an attempt at censorship. The fact you are asserting might be shown to be accurate. What editors are saying is that currently, this matter is the subject of an official investigation and until their results are published, any comments about issues like the motivation of the copilot are speculation, even if these speculation from anonymous officials appears in sources that are viewed as reliable (though I would question the reliability of the NY Post about anything). Liz 16:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not speculation to state the simple fact that this is highly suspected to be murder-suicide in an ongoing investigation. And the suspicion is obviously not speculation either, since this is an evidence-based investigation. Both flight recorders, personell records, medical records, the contents of the co-pilots search history, a video apparently filmed by one of the passenger all very clearly point towards this conclusion, so it is obviously a completely reasonable suspicion and I do not see why Misplaced Pages should not mention that it exists, despite the abundance of reliable sources. And, even assuming you were right, I cannot see how using the phrase "Deliberate flight into terrain" defended by the other editors, for which no source exists, could possibly be any less problematic in this respect. And btw, "murder-suicide" has nothing whatsoever to do with "motivation". In fact, a deliberate flight into terrain by itself already IS murder-suicide. It is the well-sourced term of murder-suicide disguisded in an unsourced phrase. --rtc (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rtc: I like how you keep claiming I "fell silent" as if that supports your case.

1. I don't live on Misplaced Pages. I have other stuff I need to do with my time, such as go to class and study, as well as go outside (especially on the first nice day of the year where I live).
2. You demonstrated from the beginning of the discussion that you had no interest in even reading anyone else's opinion. Several times you pretended to think we wanted completely different changes than our arguments indicated in order to provide a source confirming something we already acknowledged. Why should I waste my time in a content discussion with you? ― Padenton|✉   17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how your life could possibly be relevant here, let alone support your case. And of course I have read, and replied to, all significant opinions that were voiced. --rtc (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The only clear personal attack I found was bullshitty editors like you, but WP:CIVIL is about more than personal attacks. Have you read any of it? Do you claim that you have not violated it? Or do you claim an exemption because you're right as to the content? If the latter, can you point to that exemption in the policy? If not, exactly what leg do you have to stand on in this case? Please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for guidance on resolving content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to the view of 179.153.241.50 but will say it's normal in Misplaced Pages to use understated phrasing and be very conservative about using charged terms like "murder-suicide". The best argument for using that description in the article would be a solid source that uses the exact same phrase. The reference whose removal Rtc objected to doesn't use that term, and in fact I don't think it even calls the incident a suicide. Someone who reads German could check, but I think it only says the co-pilot was found to have looked for information about suicide with a search engine.

  "Deliberate flight into terrain" does appear to be a neologism, but it's based on the standard aviation term controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), which normally means a pilot flew an airworthy plane into a mountain by accident (typically a combination of poor visibility and navigation mistakes, as opposed to something like mechanical failure). "Deliberate" just emphasizes that in this case it happened on purpose so I'm ok with that phrasing. An alternative might be something like "intentional CFIT" if that works better for you.

  Anyway my suggestion re the content dispute is for 179.153.241.50 and Rtc to temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable; if "murder-suicide" is better then sourcing using it should appear within a few weeks. Our saying is there is no deadline (given that this is just a quibble over phrasing rather than about a factual error). If no such sourcing appears then DFIT is ok after all. I'd advise 179.153.241.50 to relax, using sedate language is in the Misplaced Pages style and it's fairly typical (unfortunately) for the processes to be a bit bureaucratic. You'll get used to it after a while (welcome to Misplaced Pages by the way).

  I'd urge Rtc to dial back the hostility which I think has gone past what most of us would consider to be collegial. I won't support administrative intervention at the moment since I think it's best to first just ask the person to take the advice on board, which is what I'm doing now. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  You are falling for the spin of the other editors. Those editors do not dispute that the exact term "murder-suicide" is used by many solid sources. They claim "WP:RS are not entirely reliable" and "It does not matter if multiple sources have confirmed it as suicide, because no one cares about that". They justify this opinion with their own "knowledge" which I have clearly shown to be false. See above. No, I will not "temporarily accept the DFIT phrasing as imperfect but usable". That I am even asked for this proves my point that this is not about an alleged WP:CIVIL violation, but about trying to block an editor because he disagrees with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You were not brought here for disagreeing with consensus, you were brought here for flagrant incivility. If you would stop defecting, just apologize and promise to stop all the profanity that might be sufficient to close this case. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure I was brought here for disagreeing with consensus. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. You are inventing WP:CIVIL violations as a pretext to get me blocked because my arguments are convincingly refuting the "consensus" opinion. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to disagree with the "consensus". In fact, WP:CIVIL warns that "editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged" --rtc (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue here as I thought; 1, the language (mainly in the beginning) was unnecessary and was almost a foul mouthed wall of abuse containing little constructive value. 2, What appeared to me to be a generally hostile and combative attitude. 3, An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others, unless the change you were demanding was implemented. -- I think the advice above given by 50.0.205.755 is particularly sound, and their wider comments re; content are also most welcome by me. Finaly it was not my intention to open up a content dispute (e.g. the WP:3RR has not been broken, so this remains a difference of opinion) and in any case this isn't the correct noticeboard in order to do so. --wintonian 22:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"An apparent unwillingness to see things from the point of view of others" proves that the rest of your allegations is only pretext and that the true reason for trying to get me blocked is that you want me to agree with the "consensus", to change my point of view to be in line with the "consensus" view. It does not violate WP:CIVIL to have a point of view different from the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

1, I have nor mentioned or even suggested anything with regards to a block. If I have then please provide diffs, I'm sorry to say but you do come across as a little paranoid on this point. 2, You are of course perfectly entailed to your point of view as are other people, the caveat is that when doing so editors must express them in a civilised manner that is in the spirit of collaboration. --wintonian 22:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is for requesting blocks against users, and whether you do that explicitely or not, your opening comment will be understood and acted upon as such a request against me. This is not a page for general discussion. I think you know that pretty clearly. And I do not believe you for a second when you say "I was not trying to imply anything" after you pointed so intensely at the "interesting history of the IP editor '179.153.241.50'". If you did not want to imply anything, why did you even mention it? If you do not want me to get blocked, why are you posting here? --rtc (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that you can't disagree with the consensus view. Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement among all editors. But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:UNDUE and WP:TE for guidance on how consensus is handled on Misplaced Pages. Liz 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "But the consensus has more influence over shaping the wording and tone of an article than a minority point of view"? Nobody has to agree to some specific percentage or at all with the "consensus". --rtc (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, no single editor has to agree with the consensus point of view. But if there is a difference of opinion on issues like sources or weight of points of view, the issues are decided by the consensus of editors working on the article in talk page discussions. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Continually insisting against consensus that the article has to include a specific edit, phrase, word or source, is WP:TE and can be a blockable offense. That, along with PA and civility, is the basis of the case brought against you here. Liz 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming again and again that the true purpose of this is to get me blocked because I disagree with the consensus. No, it's not a blockable offense. You are taking essays like WP:TE too serious, which try to advance exactly this collectivist point of view that one has a duty to conform to the consensus. You should try to be more critical about them. --rtc (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The blurb at the top of this page says;This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Where does it say that this noticeboard can only be used to request user blocks? I have already offered my apologies to 179.153.241.50 for involving them here, but I genuinely wasn't sure if their involvement would be of interest (or not) , something I am happy to reiterate here. However I do consider it relevant (and supportive your to you) to mention that you did have the support of another editor, even if it would be better done in a different context. --wintonian 23:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, user block requests are not the only requests that require intervention of administrators, others occasions might be requests to delete something form history, to delete an article, or block or semi-block a page. However, since you are bringing up me as an user, your request is automatically interpreted as a user blocking request, for there is no other way in which it could be understood as "requiring the intervention of administrators". If you do not want to request a user block against me, this is definitely the wrong page and you should take back your request. --rtc (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

break 1

(edit conflict) Ok, I see now that this is about the infobox. Is anyone objecting to putting "murder-suicide" in the article text? I agree there is enough RS for that, especially with WP:INTEXT attribution. Putting it in the infobox is another matter and normally only the blandest and most neutral description should go there. "Murder-suicide" is sourced (it should go in the article) but (by consensus) appears insufficiently neutral for the infobox. Neutrality is a much higher standard than merely being sourced, and there's no way to establish it other than by consensus. Imagine an aviation agency (ICAO maybe) official report with a table of all of 2015's plane crashes. It would say things like "pilot error", "engine malfunction", or other such neutral terms for the causes. That's the style the infobox should use. What would that table say for the Germanwings crash? Probably not "murder-suicide", which among other things is not an aviation term. Even American Airlines Flight 11 (one of the planes in the 9/11 attack) doesn't say "murder-suicide" (it says "terrorist hijacking").

Regarding disagreeing with consensus, it's perfectly fine to do that; just keep it civil, and move on from the disagreement (drop the stick) once it's clear that consensus has formed and is stable, whether in your favor or not. Yes, the ANI is genuinely about civility. The matter wouldn't have come here (at least this quickly) if discussion had stayed civil.

Rtc, there are many insane and infuriating things in Misplaced Pages and this issue is tiny by comparison. It's best to save your outrage for issues where it matters more. If you want to get a wider set of viewpoints about the content question, try a request for comment. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no NPOV issue here. NPOV issues can only arise if reliable sources disagree on the matter. But that is not the case here. No reliable source I know of has disputed that this is murder-suicide. murder-suicide is a standard phrase used in wikipedia infoboxes about such plane crashes, and used in cases with a lot less evidence and RS. The alternative proposed would be "suicide by co-pilot". However, the "consensus" is unwilling to accept either version, they want to stick to their WP:OR phrase of "deliberate flight into terrain". --rtc (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There's only a disagreement between sources if one source says murder-suicide and another says the opposite. If out of 50 sources, 10 say murder-suicide and the other 40 are silent on the topic, there is no disagreement between the sources, but murder-suicide is in only 25% of them, so you can't really say it's NPOV. By comparison, basically 100% of the sources about the 9/11 flights said terrorism. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you have some examples of other plane crash infoboxes that say murder-suicide? I know Craig D. Button's A-10 crash was ruled a pilot suicide by the USAF, so maybe that phrasing can work (nobody else was killed in that crash though).

If you think you might find a different consensus with wider participation, by all means start an RFC and make your case. One more observation: basic reality about guiding consensus formation is that diplomacy and persuasion work a lot better than shouting, no matter how many sources there are to shout about. So that is an area where you might focus on doing a better job (you've done poorly at it so far). If you accept that the other editors aren't idiots, and you think the sources you've given were enough to support your proposal, you have to look towards diplomacy failure as an explanation of why the "wrong" consensus emerged. If you run an RFC with good sources and good diplomacy and both fail to persuade, chances are the others are right and you're the one who is wrong. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"If out of 50 sources, 10 say murder-suicide and the other 40 are silent on the topic, there is no disagreement between the sources, but murder-suicide is in only 25% of them, so you can't really say it's NPOV." I disagree, this would not be a NPOV issue. And 0% of the sources say "deliberate flight into terrain". That argument is thus obviously invalid, it's like claiming "25 is lesser than 0 because it is lesser than 100". I am here to improve encyclopedia articles, not to play complicated diplomacy games. If editors fail to submit to the rule of argument and want to be emotionally pampered, want to be swayed by feelings of friendship and compassion rather than be convinced by rational argument, I think Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for them to be. --rtc (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that murder-suicide is emotionally charged or marked while DFIT is bland and sounds like aviation lingo. It will take much more convincing to get people to decide that the charged term (that imputes big drama on the actions of the co-pilot) is more neutral than the bland one that only says what happened to the plane. Another way to describe the disagreement: you want the infobox parameter to be about the co-pilot and passengers, while the others want it to be about the status of the airplane itself. That's a consensus decision and it seems to have settled having it be the fate of the plane. I'm open to persuasion but that seems like a reasonable choice to me, given the article's title and overall content. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"murder-suicide" is commonly used: Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 (by passenger), SilkAir Flight 185 (by captain), Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 (by passenger), LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 (by pilot). Other commonly used phrase seems to be "deliberate crash": Japan Airlines Flight 350, EgyptAir Flight 990, Royal Air Maroc Flight 630. I don't think that the infobox summary is a status report about plane or crew+passengers, but rather about the cause of the incident. While I see your point that "murder-suicide" may be emotionally charged, I still think that "deliberate flight into terrain" is a grotesque, unsourcable phrase. Given its use in the other articles, I would be fine with "deliberate crash", however (which is sourcable). There is also an article on the subject, Suicide by pilot, and I have repeatedly said that I would be fine with that phrase, too. --rtc (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, those sound like reasonable proposals. The main thing is to present them in the context of a calm discussion like the one we're having now (as opposed to earlier). You wrote "f editors ... want to be emotionally pampered, want to be swayed by feelings of friendship and compassion rather than be convinced by rational argument, I think Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for them to be." But really, I did see emotions overpowering the rational argument on that talk page, and the emotions were of anger and hostility, and you were mostly the one bringing them. I don't think anyone here is looking to be stroked or flattered, but just treated with basic respect and understanding, while the argumentative part should consist mostly of presenting facts and logic in a neutral manner instead of snarling.

Anyway, as Mandruss says, this has turned into a content discussion, though it's calmer than earlier, which is a good thing. Can we say that the ANI civility issue is now resolved, and further content discussion should go back to the article talk page, where it can stay WP:COOL and dispassionate going forward? A lot of staying cool amounts to avoiding getting too emotionally engaged with the topic. If you find yourself too wound up in it, it's best to stay away for a while, or switch to another article. I can understand DFIT sounding grotesque if you weren't used to the existing, very similar term CFIT which it's a slight modification of (so it's not really a giant leap into OR either, though maybe it's a tiny one). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This thread has been allowed to devolve into a content discussion, which (as we all know but few seem to care about) is not what this board is for. The thread is now essentially an informal RfC, in the wrong venue, 28 hours after Rtc ignored a suggestion that he start an RfC. Is it just me, or is everything way out of whack here? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, it's dispute resolution. I hope the content discussion that's entered into it has been helpful in bringing out the participants' perspectives and letting them step back a little. Understanding the other person's perspective is an important ingredient of collaboration, so anything we can do here to foster that is useful as DR. Since things are calmer now, I agree further content discussion can go back to the article talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @50.0.205.75:, whoever you are ;), you have wise counsel. I wish we had a few hundred more like you, who could serve as informal mediators in the situations like this that occur on a daily basis. I just like order, and I think things were set up as they are for good reasons. As you said, it's dispute resolution, and WP:DR says nothing about this noticeboard. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree 50.0.205.75's input has been hugely valuable and I too am happy for the discussion to back as long as we can all engage in more cordial way.--wintonian 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Another great example of my longstanding belief that we shouldn't even have articles on breaking events until they're been off the front page for at 7 days straight. EEng (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole thread has been hijacked into a very disingenuous content discussion by the editor whom the complaint was filed against, merely as a means to avoid sanctions for his repeated foul-mouthed tirades against anyone who disagreed with him. Can we please have an admin assess the original issue from the talk page, decide on a course of action and then close this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Hijacked" might not have been the best choice of words given the article at issue here. EEng (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes we haven't really addressed the issue that should have been discussed here perhaps an admin should give the issue the once over and provide their opinion. However that may just be to concur with taking the content discussion back. But yes it would be useful for an admin to let us know they are happy and to stop clogging up their board or whether they would like to consider the range of options available in their toolkit. --wintonian 12:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind hearing a short statement from Rtc as to what he plans to do differently on that talk page, if anything. At a minimum, I think some sort of weak mea culpa is in order. If he can't bring himself to do that, that's a strong indication we'll be back here in a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps Rtc could give us an idea of how they would like to take this forward and if they now have any reflections of how they engaged in the previous discussion? Does Rtc think this process has been beneficial? - Might be nice to get their thoughts before an admin come in with theirs. :-) --wintonian 12:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's need to sanction anybody since the problem is not currently ongoing. There was a content dispute over an IMHO almost trivial matter, discussion got heated and we landed here. It happens. With luck, a good night's sleep has restored people's perspectives and things can proceed more smoothly going forward. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My solution: Everyone calm down, take no action against anyone, and call it "homicide-suicide" to avoid the legal implications of "murder". The co-pilot killed the other passengers, no matter what the investigation turns up. Even if it's just a neglect of duty (like falling asleep and taking actions in his sleep), it's still a homicide. Stevie is the man! 19:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be sanctioned,but I don't think I am qualified to make that decision. Anyway I do have 1 or 2 suggestions if someone fancies restarting the discussion, now that we are all happy bunnies rather than hot cross buns- (did I hear a grone somewhere at the back?) ☺. --wintonian 22:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The thread has not been closed by an admin; that would be the point where I think further discussion would be inappropriate. If you have something to add, add it. No one is obligated to reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I am sending out mixed messages and jumping the gun aren't I? What I mean is I have a couple of ideas for when (if?) we reconvene discussions, which is where it seems we are heading after we are done here. Apologies for not being clear. --wintonian 01:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I understand you now. Well here's my take, for what it's worth. Absent the above-requested comment from Rtc, I'd be inclined to let the issue remain dormant as long as possible. But that's just me, and it may not be possible very long anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

In which case I suggest giving Rtc another day or so assuming they have a more interesting life outside and occasionally require sleep, plus it is Easter with lot of bank hols here, so people like to go out with family etc. If not by sometime Mon daytime GMT/ UTC (for example) then perhaps an admin could close. Mind you eventually when a report is released (sometime before the next scheduled apocalypse) the issue will in all likelihood be revisited anyway. --wintonian 03:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think people editing this article should just accept the fact that the actions (suicide) of the co-pilot caused the death of all crew members and passengers. Then, for the sake of using a better term than "deliberate flight into terrain" (as someone else pointed above, the term is GROTESQUE!!!), and use a more consistent one with this type of incident: murder-suicide. IMHO coming up with the argument that murder is defined by X or Y in Germany is a dubious and somewhat opportunistic way of discussing the topic because, apparently, the crash didn't happen in Germany but in France... Anyway, I seriously hope you put your personal issues aside and solve this problem. I'm really disappointed at the way some people are behaving in that article... Reminds me of articles involved conflicts in the Middle East. There is always someone trying to push their own agenda there, to "ease" things or defend the undefensable. -179.153.241.50 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Time to consider closing I think, as it seems like everyone (including me) has lost interest and moved on. Doubtless the content issue will raise it's head again at some point, but perhaps a different group will be willing to take it on. --wintonian 02:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

28 successive revdels on this page on March 28?

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

Can an admin please check and explain the revdels of 28 successive posts on this page on March 28 UTC? The 28 posts (from here to here) were by 10 different editors on 6 different threads. None of the 28 revdels seem to show up on the page's log , so this is entirely mysterious and seems to be some sort of error. It seems that most of the revdels should be reverted. Perhaps the error came after Zhanzhao requested on March 28 "can any admin help me remove permanently my last few posts where I named the social media site and the time of posting? Sorry, I'm not at my best right now and may have outed myself", but even that does not show up in the log I posted, and if that occurred, a lot of other unrelated posts by unrelated editors got zapped as well. Odd. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The revisions have been suppressed and are not visible to admins. Nakon 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Then can an WP:oversighter please look into it and see what happened? Obviously there was no reason for 28 random edits in a row on different threads to all be revdelled and oversighted. There was some error here, or something that should be explained. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The most likely reason was that an oversight-able edit was made and 27 subsequent edits were made to the page before it could be suppressed. Unfortunately, there's no way to excise the data from a revision, so the entire block of edits had to be suppressed. This is rare, but the Oversight team will suppress all of the edits regardless of how many interim edits have been made. Nakon 05:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

To elaborate on Nakon's point: if some bit of offending text was made by an editor, every revision which contained that text needs to be suppressed, regardless of which successive editors made whatever comments to whatever threads on the main page. Removing only the first edit is meaningless; if further edits preserved the offending material, those would have to be excised too. Yes, it does ruin the attribution (in the page history) of certain comments (though the comments stand and the signatures still indicate who made them). Sometimes such things need be done. --Jayron32 05:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is that all 28 completely unrelated posts on unrelated topics by unrelated editors did not contain offending text. Why can't the two or three "offending edits" be oversighted one at a time, separate from the other 25 or 26 unrelated edits? Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not possible due to limitations in the Mediawiki software. An edit makes a copy of the previous content of the page along with the new content. Regardless of the unrelated topics, the edits still contained "bad" content which was required to be removed. Nakon 05:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Nakon, those 28 edits DID contain the offending text. Every addition you make to a page doesn't remove text. It just adds to it. So when someone (even unknowingly) saves a page with bad content, those saves still contained the bad content and had to be excised. --Jayron32 05:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I see what y'all are saying. You're saying that iterations of the entire project page which happened to contain the offending information somewhere inside had to be removed. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

American Nazi Party

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

Can I please get a block on the IP editor User:173.29.227.107, who thinks that the American Nazi Party was far-LEFT wing and not far RIGHT-wing? This kind of idiocy is so... idiotic that it's tantamount to vandalism. Any admin is invited to block me for edit-warring if you like, but I'm going to be up and around for a couple of hours, and I have every intention of not allowing this vandalism to remain in the article. BMK (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked for vandalism, no action necessary for your account. Nakon 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User and talk page strictly for propaganda soap boxing

The user Sayerslle has removed all comments from his talk page, and is using it strictly for propaganda soap boxing. His user page is also filled with political propaganda statements. Per WP:SOAP and WP:UP, I tried to notify him of the issue, but he simply removed my message, which is why we're here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have WP:RS though. _Fortuna 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be irrelevant according to WP:SOAP. What matters is that he uses both pages as a soap box platform for political statements and deletes all usertalk comments. This is not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that this editor is in the midst of a 59 day block and will not be able to explain his editing in this forum. Liz 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly in the "midst", as it's due to expire in about 5 days. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems he can edit his talk page, though (as he removed my comment there), so he can communicate from there if he wants. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: As per WP:OWNTALK, users are allowed to delete any and all comments on their own talk page. Certain admin notices must be left untouched. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue of this entry, which is blatant political soap boxing. It seems he uses his talk page for source stockpiling during the long stretches of times he is banned every once in a while. Then he can go right back at POV-warring when he is unblocked... Wonder why this can go on with no real consequences. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved non admin) I find it curious that a banned editor, which is not allowed to edit an article, is allowed to stockpile edits in advance of the ban ending. AlbinoFerret 18:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  He's blocked, not banned. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Even worse Bugs. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I had thought when someone was blocked, they were supposed to confine their talk page commentary to requests for unblock and otherwise non-controversial comments. Maybe that viewpoint is no longer enforced. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a semi-controversial subject. I believe the current thinking is that as long as the talk page access isn't abused in some way -- as by continuing the controversy, making polemical statements, and so on -- TPA is kept open. BMK (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, Can I point out that, while perhaps unlikely, it is technically possible for an editor to internally hold a strong POV and be open and honest about that POV and be aware of both that POV and the policies/guidelines of Misplaced Pages and still edit in a NPOV way. My specific problem with the Sayerslle user page is not the opinion but the approach of stating opinion as fact. Amongst all the political content I don't think that a promotion of Charlotte Gainsbourg is necessarily bad. I personally think that, unless user page content is dangerous or expresses something like prejudice, restriction on a user's editing of their user page borders on censor. However this content may certainly be enlightening when judging other edits. GregKaye 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So who exactly complained about his picture of Charlotte Gainsbourg? Could we quit the red herrings, please? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk Let me reemphasise: "My specific problem with the Sayerslle user page is not the opinion but the approach of stating opinion as fact." And on this I would be more than happy for action to be taken. However, editors have lives and opinions and I do not think we should WP:CENSOR all comment. Again: "I personally think that, unless user page content is dangerous or expresses something like prejudice, restriction on a user's editing of their user page borders on censor." GregKaye 10:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Again with the nannying of user pages and talk pages. Can people just go back to improving articles? Jeesh. EEng (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's just all fine and dandy that blocked POV-warriors can game the system by spreading their propaganda further, and be ready for their next round of edit warring as soon as they get unblocked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait until his block expires, see if he turns to useful editing, and then decide whether this really matters so much. All this hairtrigger fussing about someone's talk page is a waste of time. EEng (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Without an assumption of bad faith/later use in mainspace, there seems no practical difference to building such a collection offline and copying the lot when/if they intend to get going again. Which is hardly within anyone's ambit to prohibit.- Elmidae (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason this collection of views has been "spread", to me at least, is by means of this discussion. You'll be pleased to know I've now looked at each of those links to try and work out what that user's agenda is. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems you're missing the point. WP:SOAP is clearly violated by the pages, that's the bottom line. Whether you have been exposed to ideas you didn't previously know of isn't really relevant, and no, it's not "ironic". FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel cleaner already. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to another episode of Days of Our Lives. Much appreciated, and very ironic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The real irony of course being... that User:Martinevans123 didn't mention irony _Fortuna 17:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. A vintage episode, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess you don't follow the edit summaries. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah! 20:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123 are you mocking here? Issues at WP:CIVIL include condescension and belittling. GregKaye 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive me. I'm unable to identify irony, apparently. So I probably have little chance with the niceties of civility. (And I wasn't trying to suggest that User:FunkMonk was Misplaced Pages's answer to Mrs Overall). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As indicated the problem that I see, IMO within the content at Sayerslle is the stating of opinion as fact: "'If you think Hezbollah are pro Palestine, you're deeply wrong. They're just another power broker that abuses the Palestinian cause.' - 'Litvinenko's lawyer Emmerson: "Evidence will show Putin himself as a common criminal dressed up as a head of state”' - 'ISIS is a result of the UN's inaction in Syria. And this in turn is the result of Russia's vetoes in UNSC' 'That's the appeaser's problem in Ukraine. How do you surrender to someone whose goal is conflict itself? Putin won't stop if you give in.' 'Lavrov is like a parody. Lying blustering bullying creep. And the others are worse'" GregKaye 10:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that he is using both his user page and talk page as a propaganda soap box, which is not allowed per WP:SOAP. It is quite simple. It is irrelevant which sources he is using. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Paranoia, a weird coincidence, or something underhand going on?

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I thought I should report somewhere with some weird and disturbing observations I have made. Although I am a recently registered editor, I have many years experience as a reader and link and button clicker in Misplaced Pages, so do know some of the ropes, and would like a second opinion/recommended action on this one please.

Searching for more detail following the news reports of destruction in Hatra, 2 or 3 weeks ago, I came to the Misplaced Pages Hatra article, and was amazed to see the length of the wall was as much as 4 miles! The following evening when I looked again to see if more news had been added, I spotted that the circumference had changed to 6 km. Curious, and clicking around as you do, I discovered that that same editor, Archon 2488, had made a similar unit change in Japanese battleship Musashi, but then had his wrist slapped by another editor for doing it.

This inspired me to do more clicking, and I traced back through the editor’s history and found numerous more similar unit change edits, some were subsequently reversed, but many, including the Hadra one, hadn’t been. So I decided to act, and created this account specifically to reverse the Hadra edit, which I believed was not allowed.

Then a few days later again, when I was admiring my handiwork, I saw that the same unit changing editor had been at work on the Thundersnow article. But there he seemed to be defending similar work carried out by another similar-minded editor called MetricStronk. Indeed he had undone reversals there by 2 other editors.

Intrigued, and keen to put my editing account to good use, I set out to restore articles that had been attacked by both MetricStonk and Archon 2488. Over the next day, apart from a slight excursion into a zoo article, and following days, I did some more. But then things started getting messy, with one editor, Johnuniq, who himself had reversed edits by MetricStonk, turning on me and hypocritically (see message from another editor on my talk page expressing a similar impression) challenging my reversals of edits by Archon 2488, and alarming talk page warnings arrived from previously uninvolved editors. Then another editor, Michael Glass intervened in the Thundersnow to support the work of MetricStronk and Archon 2488. At that point, feeling rather intimidated, I backed off.

My gut feeling here though is that Archon 2488 and MetricStronk are one and the same person, intent on pushing metric units to the front, ahead of the older units. Or they are at least acting in very close cooperation. I’m not sure what Johnuniq is trying to achieve though, first resisting MetricStronk as "someone being disruptive by changing the style of existing articles to SI with edits marked as minor" and then apparently supporting, even helping, Archon 2488 do the same thing. I tried to ask him about it on his talk page, but he ignored my messages. And, looking into the previous contributions of Michael Glass too, he seems to have a history of converting everything in his path to be predominantly metric.

Have I uncovered a mini conspiracy, or should I go back and get more experience editing zoo articles, or even retreat back into my hole and forget the whole Misplaced Pages thing as I'm too sensitive for its rough and tumble, survival of the fittest culture? Hugh8 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If the edit brings an article into compliance with WP:UNITS, there is no conspiracy. If it doesn't, it may be a conspiracy but more likely is multiple people being wrong in the same way. Needless to say, converting from metric to imperial or from imperial to metric shouldn't change the actual length. If you find that it has, simply correct it to match the source, but don't change the units except where WP:UNITS says to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen such a narrative brought to AN/I before. First, you need to notify all of the editors you mention in your comment that you have brought this case to AN/I by leaving them a note and link to this page on their user talk page. I think it would also help, Hugh8, if you stated what action you are seeking from administrators. If you are presenting a case of misconduct, you need to present evidence in the form of diffs (see HELP:DIFF and look at other cases on this page). If you want to file an investigation into possible socking, you need to go file a case at WP:SPI.

I don't think you should retreat into a hole but you might look at other cases that have been brought to a relevant noticeboard and learn what is expected by admins, clerks and mediators and how better to present your case. Liz 23:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP is forum-shopping. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates and numbers#Are metric units compulsory when describing events from 18th.2F19th century Australia.3F EEng (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• All commenters need to be aware that the account named "Hugh8" may well be a sockpuppet of long-term abusive user DeFacto. Please see this SP/I. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That too. EEng (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• The underlying issue (whether km or miles should be first) was explained at WT:MOSNUM. As an explanation for Hugh8, I don't care what goes first—I see conversions a lot because Module:Convert takes most of my energy, and that's how I know that Archon 2488 is a good editor. People argue about how long dashes should be (- – — and minus −), whether certain people are "English" or "British", whether non-ASCII characters should be used in titles, and whether it's "color" or "colour", and many other vital issues. Fights over UK units led to arbitration, see WP:GS/UKU. In general, a new editor will not win friends by pursuing something that has been the subject of bitter dispute. It would be much better to find something else to do, and at some later time discussing any concerns about units at relevant talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'll just add that I am not operating MetricStronk as a sockpuppet (and since no actual evidence has been produced to support that allegation, I have nothing else to say in that regard), and the OP has indeed started forum-shopping after he has had the MOS position on units of measurement explained to him clearly. Even aside from the whole SP business, moving a MOS dispute to ANI is not going to produce a different answer, and it is an inappropriate thing to do. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I note that Hugh8 has commented on my edits on Thundersnow. Before I made that edit I put a proposal on the talk page . When I received positive feedback I went ahead with the proposed edit and this was followed up by another editor doing some more changes. I can't imagine why he should find this problematical, especially as the reason for doing this was to bring the article into line with MOSNUM. (MOSNUM recommends putting metric units first in general articles.) Michael Glass (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the interesting replies.

• It is apparent that compliance with WP:UNITS is being misrepresented. Clearly its interpretation is entirely subjective, so is easily abused to promote a specific agenda. I think conspiracy comes into play when a group with the same interpretation congregates, apparently spontaneously, to act together to outnumber a smaller group with a different interpretation. Especially when they only ever seem to act together to support the interpretation in favour of metric units and never any other way. The abuse is as clear as the nose on your face!
• I was asked what action I would like to see taken. Well, I came to find out what could be done, but got no clear answer. Can we prevent, some way, those who have a clear preference to force units to go one way from influencing the outcome? Especially those who appear, often as if carefully coordinated, every time the issue arises?
• I disagree that Archon 2488 is not a disruptive. All I see in his history (apart from trivial punctuation adjustments) is a relentless and systematic bulldozing in of his preference for metric units. If he ever created new articles or ever added new content to existing articles it might be easier to accept, but he doesn't. Or even if he ever added the convert function to metric only measurements, but he doesn't. So I'll definitely be looking at the suggested WP:SPI idea to, at least, reduce him to one account. And no, I'm not "forum shopping", I'm looking for constructive ideas to tackle this, so far apparently unspotted, elephant in the room.

Please help me further if you can. Hugh8 (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

IP pushing white supremacist POV

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

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

User has previously been blocked for edit warring on the article National Alliance (United States) (about a white supremacist group), to assert that they're back under the new leadership of William Williams (by an individual who, according to -ugh- Metapedia, has ties to North Carolina, where the IP geolocates).

They've posted a (copyvio-filled) rant on the talk page against the ADL on the talk page, advocated citing white supremacist sources to the exclusion of sources like the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center, spammed recruitment links for white supremacist groups, doesn't seem able to understand WP:NPA, has no interest in learning to identify or cite reliable sources, and continues to push a white supremacist and antisemitic POV on articles after being repeatedly warned against doing so.

Can we not only get a block, but also arrange something so editors can just go to AIV and link to this discussion in the future? Alternatively, can we just take advantage of the static nature of the IP, and put it on a really long block? The person using it is at least one of Williams's lackeys (if not Williams himself). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for 6 months. --Jayron32 02:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Pushing to include unreliable sources still going on

As anticipated twice now, Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still pushes for the use of the unreliable, self-published source Graham Pascoe & Peter Pepper:

WCM incurs in policy violation, because he's fully aware of their status of WP:SPS which have never been published academically and who copied content from Misplaced Pages into that very pamphlet (as discovered by WCM himself). Moreover, he's now openly advocating for and backing edits with his own original research:

See also , WCM hasn't abandoned his WP:BATTLEFIELD philosophy. This is confirmed by his statement that WP:MEAT could be acceptable if not done "to damage Misplaced Pages", i.e. "to do the right thing":

Is this community willing to do so something about it this time?

PS: As a side note, it's relevant to mention that WCM is currently exporting Falklands-related fights to other wikis:

• Spanish Misplaced Pages:
• Wikisource:
• Commons:

--Langus (t) 01:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Writing as WCM's mentor, most of this post seems irrelevant: conduct on other Wikis obviously cannot be addressed on this Wiki and most of the above is simply attacks on WCM (I can't help but note that you linked the diff to WCM being blocked on Commons, and not the current version of the thread on their talk page which shows that it was subsequently lifted). The only substantive complaint, that WCM re-added an unreliable source to the Capture of Port Egmont article does not seem to have been discussed anywhere prior to this post. Could not a different source be substituted if this source isn't satisfactory? Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Nick, my primary concern is that invalid source. I'm more than willing to use another one, wherever it be, but WCM has reverted its removal. I'm tired of pointing it out, both here and in talk pages of related articles; WCM's stance is always the same. You can see I warned this noticeboard about WCM's obsession with Pascoe & Pepper in the first two wikilinks above:

Also, I tried to discuss this source way back in time at WP:RSN, but WCM blocked that attempt:

However, it is patently clear that this is not an acceptable source. WCM should know this, having himself realized that these individuals copied content from Misplaced Pages. You seem to be suggesting that I should've started yet another discussion instead of filling an ANI. Let me ask you this: how many times is it needed to discuss the same topic before an incident being warranted? --Langus (t) 02:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how WCM "blocked your attempt" to discuss this at RSN three years ago... You posted a question, WCM responded, and no-one else took an interest in the discussion. Making personal attacks here over ancient discussion threads hardly contributes to resolving content disputes. Judging from WCM's edit summary , he appears to be acknowledge that the source isn't without its problems, but that it's OK for an uncontroversial fact. As you aren't disputing the article content, I would suggest that you propose a superior reference - that would be a win-win for our readers. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If the source in dispute is basically a copy of Misplaced Pages information, then it can't be used at all. We can't reference ourselves for a fact, regardless of how controversial it is. A new source would need to be found which is not based on Misplaced Pages. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that this is the second time that Langus-TxT has raised a frivolous complaint about me at ANI , further he has a habit of reverting cited edits on Falklands topics if he dislikes it. , , , , . In Langus-TxT, we also have an editor who sees themselves as fighting British Warriors, British nationalists in en.WP on es.wikipedia It is not "one" of the British, Wee Curry Monster is the worst falklandista of Misplaced Pages. Welcome to their world haha. This diff is nothing more than a personal attack, however, its worth noting a very old RFC where this editor's habit of reverting cited edits was noted four years ago. They're still doing it. Here we see Langus accusing myself and @Kahastok: of being POV pushers. The issue we were trying to discuss was why there was a need for duplication of the same information. Further, I note @BedsBookworm: has expressed their frustration at Langus constantly reverting their edits , further when I re-assured Bookworm that I didn't think Langus was another editors meatpuppet he somehow managed to infer that was a personal attack on him ,. He is also being misleading in his use of diffs above, please note two remarks he claims were my attempt as WP:OR I withdrew, edit summary rm comments - withdrawn. The other is clearly not WP:OR, I state clearly that it was based on personal recollection from over a decade ago and I point to someone with better information ie I was trying to be helpful. Am I doing something wrong there, nor is it meat puppetry to suggest that someone with superior language skills could help address an issue, I didn't tell him what to write.

The comments about other wikipedias are of course irrelevant here but I would like to take a few minutes to address them. The issue on Commons relates to this image, I know from my long experience on Falklands matters that this image has been circulating for some time. Its actually a fake that was produced to claim an event was front page news, whereas it was a tiny footnote at the bottom of the theatre section. There are a group of Spanish editors (including Langus-TxT), who A) acted in a tag team to dominate the deletion nomination, B) substituted an original copy of the article for this fake version on es.wikpedia and C) added a description that is utterly misleading, historically inaccurate and pushing Argentine state propaganda. I merely tried to alert the admin community there eg .

What is relevant here, is that Langus-TxT also added this known fake copy of the Times article here .

The source mentioned is not based on Misplaced Pages and it is not referencing wikipedia. I did, however, notice that something I'd written on wikipedia had crept in there. WP:SPS has an exemption for acknowledged experts, Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts on Falkland Islands history, the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise endorsing an errata slip their prepared for his own work. In this case it was used to source an entirely uncontroversial fact. Removing a source and replacing it with a cn tag simply because the editor in question doesn't like what Pepper and Pascoe have to say is editing to damage the encyclopedia.

This is a recurring theme with this editor, when he sees a source he doesn't like (ie it contradicts certain nationalist claims in Argentina's pursuit of its Falklands sovereignty claim) he seeks to find excuses to ignore it and demand material cited to it is removed from Misplaced Pages. Latest example here where even though the source desribes her book The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. he attempts to remove content claiming its "amateurish" based on his false claim two different books are contradictory (they aren't by the way). I note he appears to be about to demand comments are removed in an article based on rubbishing the source as amateurish.

I really do think its about time the conduct of Langus was examined, he seems to create conflict unnecessarily too often. WCM_email 11:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Langus' complaint seems to be an exercise in mud-slinging - just as it was last time Langus brought WCM to ANI here. Throw mud around, see if it'll stick. If this happens again I think there may be some room for WP:BOOMERANG against Langus.

It is clear to me that Langus is not assuming WCM's good faith and has not done so for a very long time. This is amply demonstrated by the es.wiki links WCM provides: while clearly we can't do anything about es.wiki conduct, it is a clear demonstration of why there is an issue on en.wiki. If Langus objects to the source, the thing to do would be to discuss it the talk page, not to come straight to ANI with a trumped-up complaint that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever. We should not encourage or support serial mudslingers such as Langus.

In terms of the source, we should be clear that the source is not a straight copy of Misplaced Pages and is not based on Misplaced Pages. It also is quite good at citing its own sources. There is no question that it takes a side in the dispute (you only need to read it to see that), but that does not make it unreliable in all circumstances as Langus claims. We could, in principle, look for the original sources, but they are often not easily accessible, and when the point is not in contention in the sovereignty dispute there is little reason to do so. Of course, if Langus wishes to find better sources, I don't think anyone is going to stop him. Kahastok talk 11:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And there you have it, the pamphlet that copied WCM's text from Misplaced Pages, self-published by two persons who don't have the qualifications and haven't produced anything of academic value (yet WCM calls them "acknowledged experts"), the pamphlet that despite "citing" sources makes wild novel interpretations of them, is being defended right here and right now before our eyes.

I'm not required to replace any source, as Kahastok and Nick-D are suggesting me to do: if that would've the case, it would be virtually impossible for us to remove unreliable sources from Misplaced Pages when they are currently being used to back ideas that are only found in them. My intention is to remove the reference to this unreliable source, and it's being resisted by the same guy who knows it's not reliable. WP:AGF has a limit, as every seasoned editor knows. --Langus (t) 18:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that this is specially relevant now that we know that the Government of the United Kingdom is carrying cyberoperations to shape public's opinion on the Falklands issue, which includes "seeding the internet with false information": --Langus (t) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What I actually suggested was that you discuss the point on the talk page, and not immediately come running to WP:ANI to throw around wild accusations around just because somebody had the temerity to disagree with you on a matter of content. But given that you are not actually disputing the text, your finding a better source would resolve your issue entirely without any drama and probably without even any disagreement.

The question of reliability is a matter of content (i.e. not relevant here), but it is worth remembering that a source may be reliable in some contexts or for some things, and not reliable in other contexts and for other things.

But when it comes down to it, you're slinging mud shot after mud shot around here, presumably with the aim of getting some to stick on WCM. But your argument for sanctioning him boils down solely to the fact that he disagrees with you on a matter of content. There is nothing else. That is unacceptable behaviour - on your part. You accuse WCM of bad-faith editing - but again, the only basis you give for this accusation is that you disagree with him. Again, that's unacceptable. And it's not even the first time you've done this. Kahastok talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusing WCM of being part of some kind of British "cyberoperations" campaign in relation to content which you don't dispute (just the reference provided) is very silly. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that even at ANI Langus approaches every discussion in a combative manner. I did not state, as he claims, my own opinion that Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper were acknowledged as experts in Falkland Islands history, I pointed out that the distinguished historian Sir Lawrence Freedman has acknowledged their expertise . They have in fact been published in the Buenos Aires Herald (21st January 2011) and it certainly seems that the Argentine government takes their work seriously ,,,,. As Kahastok notes as a source it does take a side, however, they are very well cited and for none-contentious facts often a very convenient online source. Langus' assertion they are unreliable is entirely his opinion, another example of his habit of justifying removal of material by attacking the credibility of the source by speculation. Removal of a source to replace with a {{cn}} is not constructive. The accusation levelled of being a British Government Cyberwarfare operative is just silly (especially as ironically he cites a WP:SPS blog). The bad faith attack on the use of sources is just silly. I ask can something be done about this constant mud-slinging, I'd rather be writing articles that have time wasted at the drama boards. And for information I was 3 in 1963, I am not the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, I have an alibi as I was at playgroup. WCM_email 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I noted that the HUMINT operations are in march since 2008, nothing more (and BTW, Todo Noticias, Clarin, etc are reliable sources). If WCM believes I'm accusing him of being part of it, he's just showing his cola de paja, as we say in Rio de la Plata: my point was that Pascoe & Pepper may be very well part of this scheme. They have received attention in the media, mainly through the falklander newspaper Penguin News and the pro-British news portal Mercopress (which reprints articles from the Penguin News). Morevoer, The Buenos Aires Herald re-published Pepper's article because he submitted it to them, in an active effort to push their revisionist interpretation of Falklands' history. It was published alongside with Ambassador Cisnero's response. His last "publication" in this newspaper is a reader's letter. This is not the behavior nor the credentials of an "acknowledged expert". Lawrence Freedman is indeed a proper historian, but his work "The Official History of the Falklands Campaign" is part of the UK Government Official History Series. The same government conducting the cyberoperations. In the very link WCM provided above, it can be seen that "the legislative assembly on the islands has written to the Cabinet Office, which commissioned the work, to complain and to ask for the errors to be corrected". The Cabinet Office in turn contacted Freedman, and commissioned an errata slip.

I ask Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster and Nick-D a question. Suppose I find an article that reads: "Galileo Galilei built his first telescope in 1611 <ref>A self published source</ref>". But, alas, every reliable source I can find on the subject says he did so in 1609.

You are saying that I shouldn't remove a self-published source from Misplaced Pages without replacing it with another source. WCM says that removing it and leaving in place a {{cn}} tag is "not constructive".

How would you propose to solve this paradox? --Langus (t) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxer from the Bronx, targeting music articles

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

I thought maybe a particular hoaxer from the Bronx had ceased disruption a month ago, but I was proven wrong by this edit today which added a hoax musical collaboration to the Quincy Jones biography. (Note that Quincy's biography falls under BLP guidelines.) The hoaxer has been active for more than two years, using the following IP addresses:

• 173.68.153.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January–April 2015
• 98.116.16.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2014 – January 2015
• 50.12.114.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) June 2013 – October 2014
• 173.68.106.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2012 – April 2013

I have performed a bunch of research to undo this person's long-term disruption, while retaining any reasonably useful bits. I don't care to see any more of this nonsense.

The most recently active IP was blocked for one week in February then for one month one month ago. HJ Mitchell and Materialscientist enacted the blocks. Can we stop this person again and increase the block length? Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:192.34.174.178

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

192.34.174.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The IP has a history of vandalism, had been gone for a while, but its return is just vandalism. Jerodlycett (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:70.59.21.174

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

My impression is that this user has repeatedly attempted to change the Supremacism article to validate supremacist propaganda and among other things whitewash the Ku Klux Klan. In addition, he has left a disgusting insulting message on my talk page. Assistance would be very appreciated. Thank you for any help.

David A (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not even sure if this is an insult or not; it doesn't make much sense. I do agree that the IP should be blocked for the article edits though. Erpert 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, he did state that just because I like harmless animation shows, I am somehow "Masturbating to anime porn". David A (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Habilemonkac and Foreign volunteers for nursing for the German Red Cross during World War II

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

Habilemonkac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring to paste the text of an article to User talk:Jimbo Wales: , . He's also removing the CSD tag for this article: . His talk page shows this article has been created and speedy deleted in other forms, e.g., Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II: User talk:Habilemonkac. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Previously warned user: User_talk:Habilemonkac#April_2015, now notified of this discussion: JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Habilemonkac (talk · contribs) made his debut at Misplaced Pages by twice removing a Speedy Deletion tag from an article created by Sju hav sock puppet Creambreek. He went on to start pretty much a copy of that article. Both those articles have now been deleted; one as speedy deletion as created by a banned user and the other through an ordinary ADF process. He has now created a third article on the same topic which I have nominated for speedy deletion per G4. Habilemonkac has twice removed SD tag for the article, despite being told that he is not allowed to remove such tags for articles he has created himself. Iselilja (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove WP:CSD tag from subject article . WP:CSD states The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Notes & warnings to User talk:Habilemonkac have no apparent impact on user’s behavior. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor crossed 3RR line. Reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Habilemonkac_reported_by_User:JoeSperrazza_.28Result:_.29. Close here? JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Awesome5860

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

User repeatedly inserts irrelevant image into Polandball article (picture of a fictional country, most likely a promotion of the author's own imagination). He has been told by numerous editors in diffs and on his own talk page to cease and desist, or at least open up debate on the article's talk page. None of this has been followed through, and it is at least disruptive that we have to undo him all the time. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours; he reverted four times in slightly more than 24 hours, and that's obviously edit warring. It's been a couple of hours since his last edit, but he's seemingly taking several hours between edits, and one of his reverts followed the most recent warning at his talk page. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Caper454

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

Caper454 making personal attacks You represent all that's bad about Misplaced Pages warned user on their talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. This user is an asshole. Go ahead and block me, really don't care. I've been editing here for a decade but it just isn't worth it anymore. Caper454 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Further outbursts Mlpearc (open channel) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a background to this, Mlpearc? Not that I think any sort of background would justify that kind of personal attack, of course, but your query to them, Worth getting blocked again?, is a little surprising, considering their only previous block was in 2008. Anyway, I was going to say it's good that you warned them and they should be merely kept an eye on since they haven't edited after your warning, but as I was typing this post, this edit summary turned up. Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the block, I already posted that summary above. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

3RR "bright line" and BLP exemption

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

I've just made this edit to remove content from a BLP which was sourced to a YouTube video uploaded a couple days ago. I believe the edit is intended to imply to readers the BLP subject is improperly using a discredited chart/image during a lecture. I've asked the editor to provide BLP-compliant reliable sources about the subject matter in edit summaries and on the article Talk page. I've warned the editor on their Talk page against repeatedly re-inserting the content without providing reliable sourcing. The editor, with fewer than 2-dozen edits, has inserted YouTube links to related content (by the same 'Thorium Remix') in other Misplaced Pages articles in the past.

My question: Should I continue to remove the improperly sourced content, even beyond 3 reverts, on WP:BLP grounds, or should this be handled in a different manner? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You're probably OK. But asking for extra help is better. WP:RFPP could probably be useful if the user persists. Have you taken up a discussion with them to explain the problem? If not, that may help. Just some ideas on how to proceed. --Jayron32 01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you simply don't cross 3RR on one single article in a 24-hour period. It's no problem but it's just grounds for other editors to accuse you of breaking it. Just to stay on the safe side, do not. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RRBLP lists the exceptions to 3RR; BLP violations are among the exceptions. However, as Jayron32 mentions, getting help might be worth doing; quote: "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice (I've found something of value in what each of you said). As the editor has now engaged in what appears to be a good faith effort to discuss and address BLP concerns, I'm going to ask that this issue be marked closed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Panewithholder

In the just closed RfA of this user, who self-nommed 2 days after creating his account, I made a comment about not knowing whether the intent of the nomination was trolling or not -- now I believe that it was. In this edit to the Teahouse, the editor replaces an IP sig with his own sig, explaining that he made the previous edit while logged out. This establishes that IP -- User:24.228.60.155 -- as being Panewithholder. The day before that same IP vandalized a closed AfD with "APRIL FOOLS YOU FOOLS - THE HACKER LOL 4HT90ER4T4IUT3WT-029348T5REO" . Not the worst bit of vandalism in the world, but it does establish that 24.228.60.155/Panewithholder is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I suggest a block is in order. BMK (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I realize this issue involves a RfA but, this is probably best handled at WP:ANI (IMO) Mlpearc (open channel) 06:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURO BMK (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree: WP:ANI is probably the best place to discuss this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point anyone looking into this at User talk:Panewithholder#Administrator and Bureaucrat userboxes - completely inappropriate. ansh666 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block - I !voted against this editor in their recent Rfa and feel a responsibility to speak out here. Claiming they are an admin and 'crat on their user page is the last straw. It's an open-and-shut case of disruptive editing. Let's pull the plug and move on. Jusdafax 21:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that they're not here. At the RfA they admitted to being a control-freak, and because they cannot have adminship, they seem to be trying to claim illegitimate authority. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete my account; I wikiquit! Panewithholder (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Updates to their userpage here and here suggest they're going to quit Misplaced Pages. Although I'd still support a block for their actions. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially given this and this, after their post above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• We have more than enough for an immediate indef now, in my view. Jusdafax 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support, this user is WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for 31 hours, if anyone wishes to extend this, please feel free to do so without contacting me. Nakon 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that either the user has not read WP:FOOLS and got the joke late, or either its just a troll. In any case, its been blocked, so yeah. --TL22 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I hereby must continue to respectfully request an indef block for this series of incidents. 31 hours is likely not enough. Otherwise, this disruptive editor will most likely be back, wasting our time. Jusdafax 00:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well he did say he quit, so maybe we can just count on not coming back? Kharkiv07 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Panewithholder came to me upset over an edit he reverted on his second day, and I thought he was just a very inexperienced new wikipedian, and attempted to provide some gentle guidance. I'm beginning to suspect that may be in vain. Simonm223 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Painwithholder is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef IP autoblock is in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize everybody for my little "edit rage" as it appears. My co-worker borrowed my computer at my office a few days ago and well... he was a wiki troll. I am here to build an encyclopedia. I'm sorry for the disruption in the community Panewithholder (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An user is very aggressively redirecting articles about economics that he doesn't like

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

• Hendrick 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This may be in the wrong place but please see Special:Contributions/Hendrick_99, he has been on a rampage recently redirecting vast swathes of articles like Liability (financial accounting) and Wage labour to highly general articles like Economics and Capitalism apparently because they have quality issues or he's offended by Marxian economics. It is out of all proportion and seems to be doing a great deal of damage. Some of the redirects make absolutely no sense like "wage labour" to "capitalism." He is then in some cases dumping the article text into the redirect target, where of course it gets removed because nobody wants to fuck up a good article by adding a massive tangent of much lower quality. So effectively he's just deleting Misplaced Pages's entire coverage of some pretty important concepts. TiC 05:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. In three days, March 24-25th, Hendrick_99 (talk · contribs) made over 500 edits, rewriting chunks of major articles about economic subjects. All those articles now need to be looked at: Assets, Private property, Academic perspectives on capitalism, Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory), Oligarchy, Society, History of propaganda, Human rights in Singapore, Capitalism , Wage labour, Binary economics, The Capitalist Manifesto, Finance. That's just from the last 50 edits. The edits aren't individually bad, although there may be a political agenda. The editor seems to have stopped for now, and some of the overly bold merges have been undone. A bit of gentle persuasion to get the editor to back off a bit might be indicated, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics should be notified. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of some work, I'll take a look and patch up whatever I can. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for keeping tabs:

• Financial asset (H99 was in fault)
• Assets (H99 was in fault)
• Private property (H99 was not in fault)

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 10:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Labour economics (H99 was in fault)
• Supply and demand (H99 was in fault)
• Labor theory of value (H99 was in fault)
• Wage labour (H99 was in fault)
• Key market (H99 was in fault)

I've reverted these, since i did not think they were improvements. If you want to roll me back, please feel free... Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Capitalist mode of production (H99 was not in fault)
• Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) (H99 was in fault)‎
• Oligarchy (H99 was not in fault)
• Academic perspectives on capitalism (H99 was not in fault)
• Economics (H99 edited, now someone's done an extensive revision, I don't think I'm experienced enough to understand anything of this sort)

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hendrick 99 still needs a notice on his talk page about this discussion and I think a warning is called for although I'm unsure what is called for. I think these edits were in error but done in good faith. Liz 14:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've notified him. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)