Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 17 June 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?

Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits Special:PermanentLink/665345041 Special:PermanentLink/665345537;
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind – in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. and . Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under – sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug on Wendy Carlos constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise just plastered a huge "discretionary sanctions" on my talk page concerning my alleged edits to Hebephobia, a page I never edited. These are tantamount to a vague threat, are very ugly, rude, and since I have never, ever edited the page, false. Skyrise then said no, it was my edits to decathlon, where I changed one reference to Jenner to list Bruce, then Caitlin. I did this (with the caption "consistency") in good faith because there were three references on the page, two of which listed Bruce first. Skyrise needs to be more careful when templating the regulars and stop this antagonistic behavior. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, but nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people and that is the basis of their edit. They are not open to discussion and intentionally misinterpret or ignore MOS:IDENTITY. The template is appropriate as how a transgender person is treated in other articles falls under its umbrella. I apologize since it is now clear that your edit was not negatively motivated, but honestly, more editors need to be aware of how we currently are expecting to treat transgender subjects under WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, then tried to get me to self-revert with a veiled threat, and an implication of authority that did not exist, as the information you provided about referring to them by their current identity is still being debated. How could you possibly think that is reasonable behavior? Jacona (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is currently being debated" does not invalidate the current guidelines. It's endlessly debated every time a notable transgender individual comes out. Those past debates have not yet resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed. Until it is changed, it's proper to observe it. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"...nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people..." Skyerise, you need to dial it back about five notches. --NeilN 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise, what you were doing on my talk page appears to be an attempt to intimidate. I suspect you wanted someone other than yourself to revert because you have a topic ban or some such. That may also be the reason you posted the false article name. Is that it? Jacona (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the damn template, dude. It's worded the way it's worded by ArbCom, I believe. It also clearly states that it does not imply that you did something wrong. Again, ArbCom wording, not mine. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I was not talking about the exact wording of the templates, but your acccompanying verbage. Your behavior was very aggressive, rude, devious, and misdirected. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Merged from seperate section Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This ANI report follows on from my earlier report, and concerns Skyerise (talk · contribs), in their interactions both with me and with other editors, and their editing behavior as a whole. As a result of the earlier ANI report, I was banned for edit-warring. I have no quibble with that, but it did deprive me of the chance to carry on the discussion there. Quite a bit of what I'm posting here has already been detailed on my talkpage (the only place I could post, obviously), but not in any structure. To sum up, I think Skyerise's editing behavior has been detrimental to the project, and something needs to be done.

Interactions on my talkpage and requested interaction ban

I believe Skyerise's continued insistence on posting on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to do so, constitutes harassment. This is detailed below:

1. Skyerise's first post to my talkpage was a level-three (?) warning for adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" – obviously false, and an example of warning template use and a violation of Don't template the regulars.
2. This was followed by a "final warning" for violating the BLP guidelines – see above.
3. I reverted both of these edits, and my edit summary for the second reversion would to most editors be an indication to "back off". I do acknowledge that I lost my temper there (and that foul language should be avoided), but I'm sure other editors can understand that being templated without any attempt at an explanation is extremely frustrating.
4. Skyerise then almost immediately posted two more (, ) warnings for "user talk page vandalism". The edits in question were of course not vandalism by Misplaced Pages standards. I do understand many editors have only a faint idea of what actually is vandalism, as opposed to, say, disruptive editing, so I am willing to assume good faith there. The warnings were posted in bad faith, however, again with no attempt to discuss the issue at hand.
5. My next edit summary was again profane (apologies), but I was quite frustrated at that point. Again, a reasonable editor would take that edit summary and the continued reversions as an indication not to continue posting on another editor's talkpage, and to pursue other venues.
6. However, after those edit summaries, Skyerise posted one, two, three, four more times, all of which I reverted. This included one comment gloating over the fact that I had been banned for edit-warring.
7. I issued a further warning to Skyerise to stop posting on my talkpage, and finally a formal note where I stated that I felt harassed and would be requesting an interaction ban.
8. Skyerise's response was that they had chosen to ignore my earlier requests because "edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors", and "I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries". I would take this to mean that Skyerise read my edit summaries, but chose to ignore them and continue harassing me.

For all of the above, I am requesting a formal interaction ban between me and Skyerise, with all the attributes laid out at WP:IBAN.

Editing behavior

1. Ever since Caitlyn Jenner announced her name, Skyerise has been edit-warring constantly. I really can't be bothered going into it, but I think their recent contributions speaks for itself.
2. This behavior is what led to the run-in with me, and various other run-ins with IP editors and especially Drmargi (talk · contribs) (pinging @Drmargi separately, they may wish to chip in).
3. Skyerise is a very aggressive and rude editor, using templates that threaten sanctions or blocks against any editor that disagrees with them (see also use of sarcasm/passive-aggression at , ). This, combined with their edit-warring, can hardly be called conducive to a collaborative environment.
4. Skyerise has also produced a blatant example of canvassing. Another user, @Trystan:, pointed this out and suggested a re-formulation of the canvassing attempt. Skyerise's response was "I'll speak as I like, write as I like".

Threatening the project

Perhaps the most concerning thing Skyerise has said is this:

1. "I will boycott Misplaced Pages and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks" (the last bit is pretty funny, but even funnier to me given that I'm a bisexual man whose username is taken from a 1980s gay icon). Also note the status quo is actually the opposite of Skyerise's position.

I've never interacted with Skyerise before a few days ago, and judging by their userpage they seem like someone who's done a hell of a lot of good for the project (although with four previous blocks). This is what is really peculiar to me, and it's a bit worrying that someone's behavior could change so rapidly. I understand that passions do tend to run very high over LGBT issues, and Skyerise seems to be very passionate. I'm taking a break from editing LGBT topics and cutting back my Misplaced Pages editing as a whole for a short while, and I personally think it would best if Skyerise did the same, in a way that is hopefully self-enforced rather than imposed by the community. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could be offered, or someone Skyerise has interacted with before could have a word. I'd like to hear from others, and I think I've said everything I want to say, so I'll be butting out. ¡Bozzio! 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Quick, somebody call the wahbulance! Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. I, at least, and I suspect others, would like to see you seriously respond to the complaint here. Please take the time to do so... --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Bozzio has either not read MOS:IDENTITY or failed to comprehend it. Due to this, he began to edit-war and I unwisely engaged him. In the process, he exceeded 3RR and got blocked and now holds a grudge. I have not continued to edit war, limiting myself to one revert per day on related articles. That's about it. Not watching this train wreck. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do take a look at the summary of my work on my user page. Feel free to block me or whatever, I don't (usually) get paid to edit here. Of course, be sure to remember: blocks are not punitive but preventative. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong at the current moment. Discuss me all you want, I've got better things to do. Especially since the OP apparently can't be bothered to stay present in the discussion him or herself. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First, Bozzio, you neglect to mention that you also posted warning messages on Skyerise's talk page. But the number of messages Skyerise posted to your talk page seems like overkill. Skyerise, you talk about a block but Bozzio was asking for an interaction ban...would you have any objections to that? Of course, it would either have to be voluntarily observed or adminstered by an admin. Liz 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed not to post on his talk page once he actually requested somewhere other than in an edit summary. Is that sufficient? Seems like he continues to try to engage me by posting thread such as this, but wants to bow out of the discussion himself. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, blocked users cannot post on user's talkpages other than their own – you know that and you know very well I was blocked at the time. You've already acknowledged that you saw my edit summaries and made the choice to continuing posting. ¡Bozzio! 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REVTALK. And using profanity in your edit summaries while simultaneously expecting another editor to obey them seems like baiting to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, everything I've posted to Skyerise's talkpage is basically mandated – edit-warring warning, EWN notification (regrettable edit summary, my bad), then two ANI notifications. Hence I didn't feel the need to mention them. Also just noticed this relevant discussion on Skyerises' talkpage. ¡Bozzio! 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your templates were mandated. And if you hadn't started an edit war (and made more reverts than me), the template you just mentioned wouldn't have been "necessary" either. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which templates weren't mandated? ¡Bozzio! 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR warning. You had the option not to edit war yourself. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be mandated like ANI, but it's common courtesy to warn someone before going straight to the admins. ¡Bozzio! 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is mandated if one intends to file a 3RR report, since the report from requires a diff of a 3RR notification. BMK (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can basically agree upon the past. Going forward, can you two stay away from each other? Think hard about this because it means not checking their editing contributions, not lurking on their talk page, just going about your business with no contact with each other. Liz 02:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I wasn't going to say anything further about this matter, having no wish to be part of Skyerise's drama, much less a further target of her sarcasm and vindictive abuse of process. But after seeing the antics of the last few days, her sarcastic responses to advice from a fair few other editors, and her reduction of editors who don't share her views to crass stereotypes, I feel like I must add one final comment. What's regrettable about this whole affair is that it largely escalated because Skyerise doesn't understand or refuses to recognize one critical, fundamental point of human nature: you can't force another person's respect, whether it be of you, or of what you believe. It has to be earned. Spraying accusations of transphobia like confetti at anyone who disagrees with what she wants, abusing all manner of wikipedia templates and noticeboards, ignoring the advise of other editors, making threats, adopting a "fuck you!" attitude, and especially standing on the mountaintop and shouting, "You'll agree with me because I am right or you'll pay the price!" will get her nowhere. Reasonable, calm and respectful discussion will.

Sadly, all Skyerise has done, via her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and her various tantrums, is to do her cause far, far more harm than good. Calm, reasonable arguments have no effect -- she sees herself as the sole arbiter of truth and what we all must do, and refuses to move from that posture, using it as a justification for confrontational behavior and edit warring. Moreover, she displays a stunning lack of understanding of a range of wiki-policies, a worrying trait in someone who both claims to be the last word on the section of MOS:IDENTITY she wields like a baseball bat, and has edited here for ten years. All the quibbling, nit-picking, and game playing with regard to other editors' behavior won't change the one, problematic common denominator in this sad affair: Skyerise's aggressive editing. How she's eluded another block escapes me. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

This post by Skye is loaded with personal attacks against users they disagree with. It's also a blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS. Calidum T|C 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I mention any names? That's what makes a "personal" attack personal. This is an "if the shoe fits" sort of situation. The only editors who could possibly be offended by it would be those who fit the general description. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that's a big deal. Skyerise! Nice to meet you. You got a ton of edits, and yet you don't seem to realize that responding to every single note is counterproductive. If you'd stop pissing people off you'd be much more likely to avoid a ban/block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. Longevity on Misplaced Pages is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck. Liz 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting that... Carrite (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) /// Now snipped on my User page as "Liz's Law of Longevity." Carrite (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Like" Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not blue link it? WP:LAWOFLIZ? Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blackmane, Carrite, you realize of course that the real value of Liz's comment was in the first three words she said. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously worried

I may have not exactly been involved this ANI report, but I was following along to see where this would go. I stumbled upon Skyerise's talk page, who made rather worrying (for me, anyways) comments on another user and seems to play a game. After being confronted by AussieLegend about a {{portal}} addition to sections that weren't supposed to be and suggested to add it in External links, the user argued that "Yeah, but I like it better.". Then they went "total bombers". . I would consider this WP:NPA, but that's just me. Then, whilst debuting a wikibreak, they seem to take WP:Content dispute, ANI reports, etc. as a game (which was later edited to ). I have no idea what to make of this, but I find it worrisome and rather disturbing. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a frustrated editor who's perhaps nearing the end of her tolerance for Misplaced Pages and its drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The harassment for being trans and the constant disrespect of women and trans folk on this encyclopedia by editors is enraging, there's a reason I can't bear to argue these issues on the current discussion. People are saying awful things - that have already been hashed out, and are brought up again and again every time someone comes out as trans. I haven't been following this situation at all but there is no doubt in my mind that straight up frustration at people stating that the existing reasonably-good policy needs to be revamped because trans women are "really" men, that our Wiki-compliant system that avoids harm etc. is wrong and that somehow this situation hasn't been revisited with Chas Bono, Laverne Cox, ad nauseum. I can't sufficiently express how stressful it is - and I used to do trans education and outreach in the 1990s. And the moment they find out you are trans, it's off the races with the "you have a COI" crap. So. Yeah. It's a train wreck. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I can imagine how frustrating it is, but I don't think it excuses some of the things I'm seeing. There's also a time to step back and take a break, and let others step up for a bit. This kind of aggressive editing and interaction is going to lead to permanent burnout VERY quickly, and WP benefits from having editors like Skyerise here long term. I also wanted to comment on what you said about people claiming trans people have COI... this should not be allowed at all. Period. Nobody would claim COI to try to dismiss women from contributing to topics on women; Canadians on Canadian topics, doctors from articles about medicine, etc. That's just not what COI is. I think it should be clarified somewhere that even implying something like that is, as policy, completely unacceptable. —Мандичка 😜 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia I was merely supporting NinjaRobotPirate's comment at the time. You'll note I started with "there's a reason I can't stand bear to argue these issues on the current discussion". I wasn't apologising for anyone, merely providing context. Of course the fact that trans people can't handle the conversations because of the horrible discussions leads to not great outcomes. And the result of ongoing harassment has lead to women leaving Misplaced Pages in great numbers or being banned due to issues like this and GooberGate (I can't say its name or it'll show up and kill me). Ogress _smash! 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You should talk to {{u|Lisa||...she seems to have gotten along fine as a transgender woman on Misplaced Pages... 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:YESPOV on Somali pages

In the aftermath of the departure of User:Middayexpress, I've been working to restore a more NPOV (precisely, WP:YESPOV) view of issues on several Somali pages. WP:YESPOV states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." This means that material that happens to disagree with anothers' point of view should not be removed, because it decreases the completeness of coverage.

The Puntland Maritime Police Force article particularly caught my eyes, as I hope to encourage another user driven away by Middayexpress's POV-pushing to return to editing this and other articles. I reintroduced content based upon United Nations Group of Experts' reports to the PMPF article, and became entangled in reverts with User:26oo. He repeatedly removed these reports on the basis that their content was in some way prejudicial or biased. I advised him that edit warring was not the fashion that this encyclopedia handles these cases, and he told me that he was not concerned with the welfare of this encyclopedia . This raises the question of whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I told him that the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard was the proper manner of disputing whether sources were unreliable, and he he just continued to try and tell me that the UN Group of Experts' material was undue . Thus in addition to ignoring YESPOV he is distorting the meaning of UNDUE. He has also changed User:Cordless Larry's signature to another user's signature (), though this may have been some sort of mistake.

The community has recognised that Somali articles have been suffering from POVpushing for some time, with its topic banning of User:Middayexpress. Unless we thoroughly implement WP:YESPOV on these pages we will be continuing to allow violations of WP:NPOV. I would request that User:26oo be warned about the importance of adhering to NPOV, and if s/he is not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia, that s/he be counselled that continued editing here is probably unwise. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06 is either lying or misconstruing much of what transpired. It's all in the page's history. I reverted large blanking of sections which Buckshot06 said was twisted.1 I asked them to go to the talk page to discuss the trimming down of the sections because it was wholesale removals that were well referenced and balanced. The user responded with what he referred to hostile 'blunt' talk in my talk page saying that "things have changed around here". At this moment I do not understand what he is referring to. After I reverted the blanking, the user removes unbalanced/redundant material in a more amiable approach. I proceed to do the same. During this time, we came to an understanding regarding another page called Corruption in Somalia (refer to my talk page).

Afterwards the user introduces WP:UNDUE material in the introduction which they didn't do previously. This summary is not balanced as per the material in the article. So I removed it until the user either balanced it or we come to a consensus. (talk page Refer to talk page) The material he introduced was clearly in a bad faith given the strategic locations on the article and previous history of removal. The user has no previous edits on the article so reffered them to a third opinion already given in which the same situation is being tackled. It is then that Cordless Larry makes me aware of the fact that user Middayexpress who was a very active member of WikiProject Somalia has been given a topic ban which is why the blunt quote about things changing around here made sense. The material in question however has absolutely nothing to do with that user and was not introduced by that user. Cordless Larry also suggests that the material can be balanced rather than removed altogether which was what was happening however the user is intent on bulldozing his UNDUE material.

The user is using Middayexpress' retirement as an excuse to introduce new material without balancing it. The allegations about Cordless Larry's signature is also untrue. I merely copied and pasted another user's article because I didn't want to type it out and one of the pastes is next to his signature which was by mistake, not replacing it. It was meant to go in my paragraph not both places and I didn't notice it. If you check the talk page's history/time I remove things by accident when I refresh too so it's clumsy not malicious. I also apologized for that, in any case. It's a complete non-issue.

In regards to me not caring about the encyclopedia, I said this; Past run-ins you've had with users do not concern me nor the well being of the encyclopedia.1 So that's also false. 26oo (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This summary clearly demonstrates that User:26oo doesn't understand what YESPOV means, as he continues to say that that YESPOV material is 'undue'. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A summary in the introduction is supposed to be balanced as per the material in the article. How can you just take one side of the coin and put it in the introduction, it makes no sense. United Nations questions/alleges/asserts... needs to be due. It's not even a major part of the article yet you insert it in the introduction as if it summarizes a large article like that. Can't you see that your material is clearly in bad faith? There is not even a section regarding legality. You mention Middayexpress, a faulty signature and YESPOV as if I'm the one pushing the undue material. 26oo (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you have replaced my signature again, and this time also deleted an important part of one of my other comments explaining why I objected to your removal of sourced material. Can you please stop doing this? You didn't paste another username next to mine, you replaced it both times. I'm trying to help facilitate consensus on the article talk page, but that's not easy when I keep finding my comments attributed to other users or deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's another lie. It was fixed 3 minutes later edit fix. Buckshot06 made a comment before me before the page updated so Misplaced Pages removed it when I submitted, hence why it's fixed 3 minutes later. There's no need to divert attention from the subject, admins can check the history page. It's an edit conflict, not my fault. Your involvement has been reverting back to newly introduced UNDUE material. Your only productive input was suggesting balancing the paragraph. (Refer to talk page). This is a classic case of Wikihounding. 26oo (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of lying, 26oo. That edit didn't fix your deletion of part of one of my comments or your edit to my signature - see the diff. It wasn't fixed until I did so this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With reference to your comments above 26oo, it's a little irrelevant for this discussion where I started to introduce new text. You'll see that I've done so in the body of the PMPF article in my most recent changes. Please concentrate, for this discussion, on why you believe it is appropriate to continually try and remove one, referenced, point-of-view, which only happens to be from a worldwide IGO with specific responsibilities for international peace and security - a WP:THIRDPARTY. (To address your specific order-of-editing concern, the reason why I was readding material in small chunks was the fact that battleground editors in other Somalia articles had consistently removed large edits I made. The specific place in the article had very little to do with it). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, there's one from 6th and one from the 9th. I'm not intentionally replacing them, it's the edit conflicts as I copy and paste names, that's why I tried to fix them. My apologies. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to bring it up as it's malicious. I think it's an attempt to move the goalpost. It would be a very strange way for me to try and undermine a person. 26oo (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only raised it here when you did it for a second time. I wasn't interested in raising it in this discussion the first time, but when it happened again it started to seem that you were doing it deliberately. If it was an accident both times, then fine, but please be more careful in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Cordless Larry. I will be more careful and preview before I submit. 26oo (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. WP:BALASPS

• The strategic input of UNDUE material in the introduction, as well as using WP:Weasel such as "ostensibly" is not correct and should be balanced. That's the whole issue here. If it does not accurately sum up the contents of the article, then it has no place in the summary. Also, as pointed out in the talk page, the credibility of the UN Monitoring group has a third party has been questioned given the recent resignation of one of its members for unrelated advocacy. I suggest that we should balance the paragraph and summarize the contents of the article. 26oo (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Buckshot06 has been canvassing with HOA Monitor and has admitted to have limited knowledge on the subject matter.1 The editor goes on to say that they will follow the lead of HOA Monitor. On the subject, a third opinion was given on HOA Monitor's biased edits but Buckshot06 is now using him to push the UNDUE POV. He is adding WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references from 2012 which is before the deployment of the PMPF.

• I'll follow your lead initially, because my knowledge of the PMPF is currently once-over-lightly; basically I get the impression that it was a private force of the President, or some such. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

He is continuously adding UNDUE material, using WP:WEASEL as well as out of date references. 26oo (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's canvassing, 26oo. Canvassing involves notifying someone of a discussion in the knowledge that they will provide support. Discussing how an article can be improved on a user talk page isn't the same thing. This is essentially a content dispute as far as I can tell, so should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what's being done. HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE material and a third opinion was given, check above. I'm not sure why you'll deny this, "You have two editors saying here that it is valid" refer to the talk page. He says that two users agree and thus must be pushed after the canvassing. HOA Monitor did not even mention the introduction (which is the whole reason we are having this discussion), his concerns are regarding Somalia Report which accurately should be removed and I've done and stated so. Please refer to the talk page before you make any conclusions. 26oo (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Buckshot's posts on HOA Monitor's user talk page precede the current discussion on the article talk page, so I don't see how they are canvassing. I suggest you continue to discuss the content dispute there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

And all I am saying is that, Buckshot06 sought the influence of a user that has a negative track record on an article Buckshot06 never edited, before inserting UNDUE material. That said, yes it's being tackled on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To address 26oo's immediate concern, yes, User:HOA Monitor and I are considering editing and changing a number of Somali-related article, and chose to discuss potential actions before we started them. Such things occur every day all over the site, and are entirely uncontroversial.

What's more important is that User:26oo continues to demonstrate here a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV: it simply doesn't matter if the material is 'negative' or 'positive', what matters is that it is based on WP:Reliable Sources, and is presented based on how important any piece of data is to the general picture, depending on who is trying to put it across. He has three editors, HOA Monitor, Cordless Larry, and myself telling him on the PMPF talkpage that the Group of Experts material is germaine, a Reliable Source, and WP:THIRDPARTY, yet he continues to argue, here and elsewhere, that because it is 'negative' that it somehow has less weight. I would ask him whether he can draw our attention to any WP rule about 'negative' material, because we continue to draw his attention to THIRDPARTY and YESPOV with very little apparent result. This makes me wonder, given his earlier insertion of untruths in 2009 re Galkacyo, his block for edit warring in 2013, and his earlier admitting 'that nor the well-being of the encyclopedia concerned' him whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I have over and over and over again tried to convey to him that 'negative' does not make WP:UNDUE, but he simply does not seem to comprehend this, nor what WP:YESPOV actually entails. I remain increasingly concerned about this user's motives for editing this site. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with negative or positive. It has to do with creating a balanced introduction. There's no need to bring up an edit from 2011 which has nothing to do with the subject matter. You've already tried to smear me in your first post on the ANI when you were insinuating I was vandalizing Cordless Larry's signature, an error which he understood.

You've understood that the item is unbalanced in the introduction so you moved it to the overview, which is great. However now you are using WP:WEASEL, to push an out-of date reference in the introduction, before the deployments. Also Cordless Larry is right, we should stay on the talk page from now on, I'm not sure this is the forum for that.26oo (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo I take exception to your assertion that "HOA Monitor has a history of trying to push UNDUE" material and challenge you to substantiate that. My previous attempts to edit Somali pages were repeatedly blocked or reverted by Midday Express, who has subsequently been topic banned. In what way does that constitute WP:UNDUE? On the contrary, I find the page places undue weight on Puntland government statements and -- until I pointed it out -- a paid propaganda outlet named Somalia Report. Introducing credible third party sources is intended to redress this imbalance. I find your attempts to exclude content that you object to, including UN reports, very similar to that of Midday and am beginning to share Buckshot06 questions about your motives for editing this site.HOA Monitor (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for soapboxing, I'm the one who removed Somalia report, so I don't know what you are on about. Take the discussion back to the talk page. 26oo (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have little interest in WP:NPOV and as you do not seems to understand what UNDUE actually means, you have repeatedly pushed allegations of 'bad faith' which bear no resemblance to WP:AGF's actual wording, the correct place is very much here, 26oo. Your repeated attempts to remove solid THIRDPARTY sources in favour of involved govt sources like Puntland and paid-propaganda Somalia Report, makes me wonder. User:HOA Monitor, User:Cordless Larry, and I would all like to assume good faith in your contributions, but we are beginning to find this quite difficult. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole reason there's a content dispute is because you are deliberately adding UNDUE material, there's no need for projection. You are also tampering and inserting opinions into referenced text on other pages too i.e Somalia. I'm the one who removed the solicited Somalia Report text and I moved the section about UN bodies to support. So you are incorrect about me removing things. Cordless Larry has an evident bias throughout the talk page and inserts his opinions without reading the talk page. He assumes things I am not doing multiple times throughout the talk page. He also incorrectly assumed I was removing things from the page when I wanted a balanced introduction per content, he also backed off of that agreeing the removal of the 'overview' section. Content was moved to establishment and support.
User:HOA Monitor is claiming I am removing the NYT article, which I actually expanded, contrary to his claims on the talk page. 26oo (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you're presenting my comments out of context. When I said "I'm contesting your assertion that material from 2012 doesn't belong in the article", I wasn't assuming that you were removing things, as you put it. I was just responding to your suggestion that "As such, it has no place in the article, let alone in the introduction". Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the millionth time, negative does not equal UNDUE. UNDUE states that 'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.' You are continually trying to introduce non-THIRDPARTY material, which has less weight than the United Nations reports, as shown by their THIRDPARTY status, intergovernmental status, and consensus of support on the talkpage. What you're consistently trying to argue is that the minority view has equal status, which, given that they are Puntland Govt etc, does not accord with THIRDPARTY. This is simply not WP:UNDUE. Because of banned users like Middayexpress, a lot of Somalia-related pages are completely dominated by unsupportable minority views. These do not reflect THIRDPARTY, NPOV sources. UNDUE is not an argument you can use. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry. I said it has no place in the article if unbalanced. I simply wanted to point out that the report is before the force was deployed, as acknowledged by the very source Buckshot06 provides.

Buckshot06, your edits are in clear bad faith as you say in this summary that cameras weren't looking. Not sure what to make of it other than clear bad faith. I'm not saying two sides have an equal standing, that's ridiculous but you tamper with your own sources as shown in the link above. 26oo (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say 26oo that you do not appear to understand what WP:Assume Good Faith means. I am trying to improve the encyclopedia by introducing more reliable, WP:THIRDPARTY sources (such as those that report the force is for internal security, and they have not reported the internal security operations they've been on). You are denigrating THIRDPARTY sources in favour of WP:QS sources who have Conflicts of interest. Thus I would instead argue that you are not showing good faith in trying to improve the encyclopedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who has no good faith and tampering with your own sources i.e 1. You also removed content calling it WP:CIRCULAR when I've shown the original source on the talk page (edit). On the ANI, you pretend to act in good faith but on the talk page and page's history there's tons of bad faith. 26oo (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I won't dignify the nonsensical charge of 'tampering with my own source' with an answer. Would you kindly, again, define what you mean by 'bad faith'? We're introducing THIRDPARTY sources, while you're defending WP:QS conflict-of-interest sources. Who's trying to advance a more reliably-sourced encyclopedia here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are tampering with it, look at the link above. THIRD PARTY is ok but per source. You insert your opinions into referenced text which are not in the source. Here is your opinions in the edit and summary from PMPF article. Now you are removing things because you don't like them even after I proved it was not WP:CIRCULAR, as Cordless Larry even recognized. It's all in the edit history, no need for projection. 26oo (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break

As noted on my talk page, it would be helpful if the editors who are raising concerns regarding 26oo's conduct could provide diffs to demonstrate each of these concerns. The comments here from several editors in good standing are certainly serious, but this matter appears to require some specialist knowledge to be able to assess the issues around the references being used and removed, and diffs would greatly help in stepping admins and uninvolved editors through the concerns. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based harassment by EconomicsEconomics

• EconomicsEconomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Greek government-debt crisis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

EconomicsEconomics has been making continuous ethnicity-based attacks since 1 June 2015 on Greek editors at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis constantly accusing them of WP:COI based on their Greek-sounding usernames and other identifiers of their Greek origin. I have given this user multiple warnings about harassing other editors including a final level 4 harassment warning on their talkpage yesterday but to no avail. Today, after I accepted Danish Expert's compromise wording he again came to the talkpage today to accuse me of COI:

(Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT)

Another attack here from 8 June

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite.

COI attacks against Greek editors from 1 June 2015

May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Misplaced Pages).

There are many more ethnicity-based attacks but I have added just a sample that I hope is representative enough and shows a persistence through time as well as unresponsiveness to warnings or discussion. Can an admin please put a stop to this ethnicity-based harassment? Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not harassing as User Dr.K. knows better but he omitted the following statements (all on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis") (I am technically not so versed in showing diffs, the bold typefaces are only put in when citing). There are many editors having problems with Thanatos666 and Dr.K., as they show clear behavior of WP:CONFLICT and try to "own" the article "Greek government debt crisis".

Citation 1:

"@Dr.K. , you know it better:

(so why the show if you hate long discussions?)

I am not "targeting Greek editors" but I proposed (after very frustrating and blocking discussions with Greek editors) to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT (Thanatos666 himself said that his agenda is to have "Greek interests" represented and that "Greek interests etc. a prominence") that they should refrain from blocking the article improvement. You strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything. What are you trying to convince me? That I'am blind?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)"

Citation 2:

"Dr.K. now picked the only option that is blatant WP:SYNTH ( "Due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014" ) - this is totally made up - and anyway not very believable if one has read the press the last years. Also again a very astonishing double standard of Dr.K. who has tried with his other edits on this talk page to make everybody believe he would fight WP:SYNTH (even if there was no WP:SYNTH.). (Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT )--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is even intentional deceit by Mr.K. as the title of the Dec 2014 source is the opposite: Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece, detailing: "In fact, if anything, people are now so squeezed they have fewer inhibitions about taking bribes than before the crisis.", and: "Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders" - I don't trust in no word anymore from Mr.K., if I ever had.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)"

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to show the language of Thanatos666 works in concert with Dr.K: (also on the same talkpage)

Citation 3:

"You are exactly confirming what I said: With a mainstream understanding how economies work it is easy to understand that BOTH happened - Greece got a debt cut worth 100 bn, bailout loans >200 bn, various other supports AND there was a firewalling and support of the international financial and banking system, too (no conspiracy thoughts needed, just common sense). With common sense it is also easy to understand that a 10 mil population with >300 bn debt and a high debt/GDP ratio and >10% annual deficit has to execute a lot of hard changes to arrive again at a sustainable state.

To comment the measures in the debt crisis with a phrase like "the interests of the Greek people were arguably sacrificed" seems to be as POV as to reducing it to a sentence like "the interests of the Eurozone tax payers have been sacrificed because Greece circumvented the Euro treaties and now wants the other people to pay for it". But even if you prefer one-sided sources like Paul Blustein to comment or "better understand" the debt crisis, it does not change the way Misplaced Pages should describe the crisis in a summary, i.e. the main causes, main measures, and main evolvement points. So, why still block a transparent summary of the debt crisis? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)"

You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been for so long delayed and that such a huge new loan(s) was given under such conditions is the very point of it being extremely negative for the interests of Greek people, tipping the scale greatly for the interests of the creditors, even that is, if one limits oneself to a framework of a supposedly, a so called mutually agreed upon, amicable agreement and exclude a Grexit etc (...)

--Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All I see right now is a bunch of people wielding spears and wearing tusk-proof armor, on both sides of the debate. Weegeerunner 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not link to humour pages. This is ethnicity-based harassment and it definitely is not funny at all. How would you have liked someone to use your ethnicity to accuse you of COI in editing an article, assuming you were transparent enough to divulge such details about your background? Δρ.Κ.  18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no humor tag on No Angry Mastodons, and my point still remains. You need to calm down, there is no evidence of blatant harassment because of your ethnicity, I know what ethnicity based harassment is like (as I have dealt with it), and I don't see it here.

Don't tell me to calm down, per WP:CALMDOWN. It is a form of trying to portray an editor as out of control. Please don't do that. If you don't recognise the harassment that's your problem. Not mine. Δρ.Κ.  18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying calm down as per WP:AGF. Its clear you are worked up about this, and I don't recognize the harassment because I don't see any evidence of harassment, all I see is incivility all around. Weegeerunner 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case. Δρ.Κ.  18:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasty assumptions are a sign of being worked up. Weegeerunner 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked EconomicsEconomics 24 hours for the personal attack above.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Unblocked after seeing that he proxied Thanatos666's comment from talk page. I would like to hear from Thanatos666 regarding the personal attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This diff has the attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • Hi Berean Hunter. I am not trying to justify Thanatos's intemperate remark, but if you check the date it is from 2 June 2015. One day after he was provoked by EconomicsEconomics's statement:

      May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Misplaced Pages).

      Δρ.Κ.  18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just applying the "find"-function on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis" for the three five words

• f...ing
• f.ck
• shit
• idiot
• liar

will always lead to the user Thanatos. But I don't think he is addressable as being very emotional with this article. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Thanatos's behaviour justify your ethnicity-based harassment of the other Greek editors? Δρ.Κ.  18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any harassment coming from EconomicsEconomics. Just basic uncivilty, but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Weegeerunner 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So you dismiss the three quotes I provided at the top of this section? It is your right and your problem of course. I can't be any clearer about the harassment which I think is clear enough. Δρ.Κ.  18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The three quotes there are simply accusations of COI, I don't see how that means he is harassing anyone because of ethnicity. Weegeerunner 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Can you specify why I am wrong and what did I put Economics through? Δρ.Κ.  18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What you did wrong is quickly assume EconomicsEconomics is attacking you because of your ethnicity, and when I said "but seeing what he has been through," I was referring to the "fucking racist" comments he was pummeled with. Weegeerunner 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And you think the three quotes I gave are not ethnicity based attacks. I think we are going in circles. And do you think that Thanatos's remark gives him the right to say that other Greek editors have a COI? Δρ.Κ.  18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that? He has the right, as a wikipedian to suggest that someone might have a conflict of interest based on their edits, not their ethnicity, nowhere in those quotes does he mentioned the ethnicity of an individual or group of wikipedians, so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. Weegeerunner 18:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. I repeat myself: I you do not see evidence of ethnicity-based attacks and harassment after I gave you the three quotes in my opening post, it is your problem, not mine. Δρ.Κ.  22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The last weeks you didn't have such a problem teaming up with Thanatos666 who is constantly hard core humiliating with those 5 words (see above) until today. You never protested the slightest, even defending him here. Isn't this again a bit of double standard from your side?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Greek interests" alleged quotation of me: It's a ridiculous example of quoting and misquoting out of context. It's an audacious lie! I've just written a reply to EconomicsEconomics (henceforth E.E.) on this, noting inter alia that he/she has now gone far beyond redemption; instead of me writing another rebuttal anew or copying the former hereto, anyone interested can or should go to the talk page and search for "OK, I had taken a break - something I'm thinking of repeating because".
• Regarding the language I've used: Yes I have expressed myself in "french". And to be frank I would do it again. E.E. has used among other things racist slurs, stereotypes and false and ridiculous personal and ethnic-based accusations (the irony is that he/she among other things has yet(?) to realise that accusing other editors, a whole ethnic/national group of them, for bias after having used him/herself racial slurs, stereotypes against a nation and an ethnic/national group of editors is to say the least a ridiculous and presumptuous contradiction) after I (and Dr.K.) had in fact warned him repeatedly. Dr.K. has remained civil, polite. I haven't, I didn't, having had warned E.E. that I wouldn't (search for "I'm briefly replying to you and I'm remaining reasonably polite only because third parties may read this and I don't want people to think that I/"we" can't respond; next time I assure you, I won't be so polite..."). I had also stated at a relevant point in time that if any admin thinks I must be punished for the language I've used, then OK, fine, but that there must be also other steps taken; search at the talk page for "Preemptively to any wikipedia admin(s) who might read this:".
• E.E., among other things, keeps using fallacious arguments (e.g. moving the goalpost, search e.g. for "1. (myth) – why should it be “impossible” for Greece to collect due taxes and execute privatizations?" taking into account what he/she was replying to and also the eventual response on this specific issue by me; see below, the next phrase I've provided to be searched for), misrepresentations of what other people have said, creative interpretations of WP policies, blatant lies etc; search e.g. for "I shouldn't reply to you - yet again -".
  I personally have long lost any hope that he/she can discuss or act in good faith, even if the racist slurs were to be disregarded.
• PS There has been a long discussion or "discussion" over the last days at the article's talk page that has evolved into various sub-discussions with various people joining in at times and clustering together and against others (to be frank, some of them, imo have joined in to simply push for e.g. an ideology... ;-)); it started with me discussing with Danish Expert. I recommmend, as I always do, to whomever is interested and before any decision is to be made, to go through the whole of it/them carefully because among other things context is crucial. Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me some diffs of EconomicsEconomics being racist and using slurs. Weegeerunner 19:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

PS You could have gone through the whole thing (and therefore could have found it by yourself), as I have asked; alas...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did that, and that quote above doesn't show any slurs or discrimination against those of Greek background. Weegeerunner 20:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not, can you please explain how that quote is blatantly anti-greek? Because I think you might be misinterpreting what he said. Weegeerunner 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• WTF!?!? No I can't, I refuse to! This is absurd! If for example you really don't understand the meaning and the gravity of the aforementioned phrases then you have no place here judging E.E. or anyone else for that matter...
• To third parties: Do I really have to explain this?!?!? Is this also the opinion of (most) other editors? If so, I simply give up, it would be utterly meaningless to continue... Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So tell me oh ye wikipedians, would it have been considered my fault had I again expressed myself in "french" towards E.E.?!? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in. As you all know, I have debated quiet a lot recently with all three editors, and been reading through most of the posts at the talkpage debate now being patrolled for potential "ethnicity-based harassment" problems. I agree with Weegeerunner, that EconomicsEconomics did not post any "ethnicity-based harassment", but that the debate from both sides suffered from heated emotional tension without sufficient use of WP:AGF. The sending several times of a warning in advance by Thanatos, that if EconomicsEconomics posted something being perceived provocative then his next reply instead of addressing the problem or misunderstanding in a friendly polite manner - instead would be malicious, IMHO does not serve as an appropriate way to respond. In fact such attitude (last time responding by posting 16:31, 9 June: You're such a presumptuous, such an audacious liar... I pity you..., instead of replying "sorry, but you apparently misunderstood and by accident misquoted what I wrote, my point was..."), only fueled further tensions between the two editors in concern.

As for the specific red line you now focus on, my own personal interpretation was that EconomicsEconomics did not intend to post a racist slur with his last line. His main agenda in the debate was to ask for the lead more clearly to summarize the causes behind the Greek government-debt crisis, and I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press". However, Thanatos apparently interpreted the last line to refer to the preceding question line, assuming that EconomicsEconomics implicit suggested that: disruptive Greek editors with a culture of preserving chaos and slowing down any progress to the speed of the slowest was a typical element of the Greek national culture, which now had taught him the "understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press".

All of the above is only my personal third party opinion of what went on. My hope is, that both sides learned from the clash, namely the importance of always injecting a double dose of WP:AGF in the future before you reply, and if feeling provoked by other replies then its far better to respond by utilizing a patient and civil tone, rather than derailing the debate by posting tension building provocative counter-replies. As I perceived it, all sides from the start intended to be constructive, then the debate got heated, and as a consequence partly derailed. This said, I will leave it for an administrator to assess the two cases in its entirety, as I want to stay neutral in this clash (in which I am not a part). Danish Expert (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
Right.
Now a creative, an imaginative argumentation on and of supposed intentions has been brought forth and not on and of actual actions. And then the blaim gets passed to me; i.e. even if said intentions had not been (I don't see how could this be) bad, it's not E.E. who should have e.g. apologised and/or tried to mend things and/or denied explicitly to me the explicit accusation against him by me, clarifying things etc. (again, how could he/she?); it's instead me, (and I guess therefore also Dr.K. and other Greek wikipedians in general (let alone Greeks in general)) who should have tried to address the issue, I (and therefore we) the one who had/has been the target of this supposed instance of misspeaking or misunderstaning or whatever else one might say trying to justify this by invoking supposed intentions, and of the rest of the accusations he/she made and stuff he/she said.
Right.
PS Now how could one interpret this
"@Thanatos @DrK: you both seem to agree that the current article "summary" does a bad job summarizing at all; you both say it is too complex for you to write a good or at least mediocre summary; you both cannot specify if you would add/change/subtract specific points from a proposed clear-cut bullet summary I presented as a preparation; you both say you prefer to block other authors to write a clear cut summary ("accusing" them of POV without specifically saying what you specifically identified as POV). After 5 years of a very bad summary in this article, what is the risk here? afraid that you cannot tweak a short and understandable summary so easy later-on (to reflect your personal wishes you cannot really explain here)? Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"
like this
""I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press."",
only Zeus knows...
Or put in another way, what does it (the latter) even mean?!?! ;-)
PPS I repeat, if this is the opinion of most editors then I simply give up... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only posted my objective third part opinion of how the "accusation debate" now being investigated evolved. None of us (only EconomicsEconomics) can know for sure what EconomicsEconomics meant by the words of his last line in the specific reply you cited above. When applying WP:AGF, one of the potential meanings could be the "friendly one" (green version) that I specified above, namely that EconomicsEconomics posted a set of rhetorical questions to you and Dr.K in the hope this would result or push the debate into a more constructive path in his point of view - and that the last line should not be interpreted in the way you did to the last question line but instead more to the first rhetorical question (meaning EE only intended to hint that: despite of the causes of the Greek government-debt crisis not being clearly enough formulated by the lead of of the article, at least he had "start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press", suggesting that the press in his point of view has a negative track record of simplifying what the crisis is about from various angles while failing to present the true technical economic main causes behind the crisis).

My point is the last line of EE can be interpreted in multiple ways (of which my earlier reply also formulated the first one - the "racial slur interpretation" (red version) - which you apparently adopted). However, when the line can be interpreted in multiple ways, the only appropriate thing to do is to assume good faith on EE. I never pointed my blame finger for the heated debate at either you or EE. On the contrary, my reply above reflected my personal point of view, that both of you initially had been only constructive towards each other and engaged in a constructive debate, but that both of you got caught by emotions in the process, and then enrolled each other in a fight that could have been avoided if both of you had excersized a double doze of WP:AGF from the beginning. Moreover, I also find it inappropriate whenever someone reply to something he finds to be "an injust provoking policy-breaking reply", by a counter-reply being a breach of Misplaced Pages's policy of "exchanging substance based arguments in a proper friendly tone while assuming good faith". Adding fuel to the fire is never constructive.

All this said, my personal opinion is, that while both of you kind of owe each other an apology - and both of you could learn something positive from this debated emotional clash, neither of you deserve or qualify to get banned. However, as I am not part of your clash and does not want to be in anyway, I will leave it for an administrator to solve this matter. In this regard, my post (which is the last one here at this ANI page) is only a third part opinion submitted. As I want to stay neutral in this case, I will leave the further arbitration and resolution of the case, to be dealt with by one of the active administrators. Danish Expert (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. Stretching E.E.'s words and interpretation thereof to a level, the point of absurdity, so that they could become excusable.
So, let me be more clear, crystal clear:

• Your highly imaginative interpretation does not follow from anything contextual or from the words themselves! Said words are not in any way open to such an imaginative interpretation!
• I don't care if I get punished, I've said so, manyatime already. I've used said expressions, words and phrases used due to stated reasons and after having warned said interlocutor; I, unlike some other people, accept the responsibility for and the consequences of my words, of my actions. But there is no way in hell I'm gonna apologise to E.E. after such behaviour, accusations and expressions against me and essentially all Greek wikipedians, let alone against the whole Greek nation itself!!! Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is asking you to apologize but it is time to stop shouting and drop the stick. At this point, you aren't helping anyone including yourself. We don't block punitively but we will to prevent disruption. Let's hope that it doesn't come to that. Please see the below section on a proposed solution and see if you can abide by that, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks are continuing by EconomicsEconomics

In the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis EconomicsEconomics continues his personal attacks:

No, Thanatos666 and Dr.K. are not "pushing an agenda", why should they? What agenda? It's obvious for everybody that they are being neutral about this article, and constructively cooperating to get improvements in the article, too. If there should be POVs and SYNTHs kept/introduced because of their actions, it would be pure coincidence, thanks to them it is a really good article, I insist.

I ask again for admin intervention. Δρ.Κ.  22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, as one can easily verify by going through the discussion(s), I've repeatedly said for example that I don't like at all the present state of the article (see e.g. my long discussion(s) with Danish Expert), it's just that I don't want it to get even worse, according to my views on bad and worse, that is.
Similarly, one can also easily check and verify what Dr.K. (or others) has actually said... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I checked, and I see you both acting uncivil. Weegeerunner 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any diffs about my alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ.  02:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All 3 of them

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

I propose all 3 users, Thanatos666, Dr.K. and EconomicsEconomics should be blocked for incivilty. None of them have clean hands, and they are all just trying to paint the opposing party as horrible while hiding their own mistakes. Weegeerunner 02:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any diffs to support your absurd proposal about blocking me for alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ.  02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I think I just found my first one. Calling my proposal "absurd" is not civil in any way shape or form. Neither si assuming bad faith so quickly. I still have not gotten a single diff proving he was harassing anybody over their ethnicity.Weegeerunner 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I just found my first one. Your arguments are becoming more absurd by the minute. You asked for my block based on incivility that occurred in the past not now. And I inform you that your original proposal was absurd and I have a right to call it so. Now, can you provide any diffs for any other alleged incivility than your absurd current allegation? Δρ.Κ.  02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this whole ANI report evidence enough? You have made accusations of prejudiced harassment without evidence, and you act condescending and passive aggressive towards anyone who disagrees. That's what people with battleground mentalities do. Weegeerunner 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling someone "passive aggressive" is a personal attack. I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please observe these core policies of Misplaced Pages. Δρ.Κ.  02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, how? I'm reffering to your behavior on the wiki, and I have proof, such as when you said You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case and how it is uncivil. I think you need to check out WP:NPA2. Weegeerunner 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't recognise your incivility and your condenscension I am not going to use ANI to try to explain it to you. My reply to you was measured and civil. Now please move along and let the admins handle your absurd request. I have no time for this nonsense. Δρ.Κ.  02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is just showing how uncivil you are acting right now. Weegeerunner 02:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You have said that before. Please stop repeating yourself and let the admins handle this. Don't create more clutter for them to shift through. Δρ.Κ.  02:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That kind of language is still uncivil. I gave evidence for my claims, and you are being rude. But since I'm not in the best of moods right now, I'm leaving. I'm not gonna stay here and be treated like this. Weegeerunner 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You can always have the last word. But in parting I advise you to not forget the core policy of WP:AVOIDYOU. Good bye. Δρ.Κ.  02:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this AN/I is ridiculous, Weegeerunner has provided zero evidence, but wants all three users blocked? The only user who should be block is Weegeerunner for persistently accusing others of uncivil actions with no evidence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My only complaint is where this ANI report has gotten to. However, I do agree diffs would a lot of time. "Isn't this ANI enough?" is not enough. I suggest all users involved to WP:IGNORE, WP:AVOID and WP:GETOUT (if such articles even exist). They're all digging themselves deeper, bigger holes that no one has seemed to get out. I suggest that all users involve leave and let admins handle the report, unless a user has factual evidence of such claim before WP:Losing their cool (again, if it even exists). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Solution

I have read the Greek government-debt crisis talk page in its entirety because single diffs don't help in the light of the accusations. - EconomicsEconomics should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Dr.K. should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Thanatos should be blocked indefinitely (continuous intentional shocking insults) - Conflict of Interest editors should be blocked from the article for an least 6 months (If reading the article talk page in full it is evident that there are editors with a COI driven agenda leading to heated discussions.)--80.187.98.145 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok....that is not happening. This IP user may have lost his/her mind. Strange how this is their first post, but nevermind that. And yeah, diffs actually do help in this, since I have yet to see any by anyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your insults and accusations to parties moderating this discussion are not really helping. To check the validity of the case that includes COI accusations you need to browse a 400 K take page and not to insult other moderators.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderatoring? Your "solution" is to block the three users, one indefinitely without any diffs or based reasoning. No one in a sane state of mind would even consider such a dictated punishment. Also, I never made an accusation, just stating how strange it is. Your defensiveness doesn't help in that regard. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TheGracefulSlick. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading a 400 K talk page I proposed a solution. I didn't dictate or implement it. No reason to be rude again and again, TheGracefulSlick.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not rude to criticize a "solution". I wouldn't be so critical of the proposal if it was legitimate, reasonable, and held substantial amount of diffs that could support it. In that case, it failed in all of the criteria and should not even have been recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't recommend or dictate my solution, I proposed one solution as the title shows and provided reasoning in brackets. Feel free to read the 400 K and do comprehesive diffs and reasoning. Your language in this discussion is rude, not critisizing my solution proposal.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested it, why should I provide the diffs for you? That is your job if you want to make an outrageous proposal. Regardless, I read the discussions and, still, your proposal is outlandish. If you want to accuse me of rudeness, I couldn't care less. The fact is the "solution" is way too serious, a reasonable solution should be proposed by an admin, not an IP user who has zero experience elsewhere on articles or discussion (unless you are not a new user...).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't do cool-down blocks and there is no need for anyone to bicker in this sub-thread. So far, I haven't been convinced that blocks of any kind are necessarily part of a solution here. I haven't been convinced that there have been any racial slurs...if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either. I will say that if I had seen that remark that someone was a "fucking racist" at the time that it happened, I would've blocked Thanatos for the personal attack. Going to that level of incendiary isn't justified at all and does not help anything. This can be taken as a warning that it should not happen again otherwise blocking to prevent disruption is likely to occur. The continual accusations that keep occurring need to cease and those editors that are finding themselves greatly angered should voluntarily walk away and allow themselves to cool down and allow those that can remain calm to focus on the content. Dispute resolution could possibly work but if that breaks down then editors would find themselves here again. Danish Expert, MattUK and bobrayner have been level-headed and insightful and their efforts are commendable. I would suggest that Dr. K, Thanatos666 and EconomicsEconomics take a break and allow others to work on the article for a few days. When you come back, try to rejoin on the talk page without reverting first and seek consensus. Are you willing to do this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly fine for me. Thanks.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Sorry Berean Hunter, but if someone uses the (Greek) username of an editor to insinuate an editing COI that's an ethnicity/nationality-based attack. I don't have any problem at all to not revert at the article. My last edit at the article was to implement Danish Expert's suggestion almost verbatim save for a few grammatical corrections and the one before that was to correct another edit which was based on outdated information. I actually rarely edit the article and don't participate in the discussions often and the only reason I participated recently was because of some obvious problems with the edits including SYNTH. You said that if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. Fine. Are you going to allow nationalistic slurs on the talkpages of articles without giving the perpetrators a warning? I think you should make clear in your decision that nationality/culture-based attacks are not acceptable and should stop, otherwise you inadvertently provide those prone to them to keep harassing the Greek editors with them. I quote another taunt by EconomicsEconomics to remind you of the kind of attacks one faces on that talkpage from that editor:

Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ.  18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said above "I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either." I had thought that this culture of "preserving chaos"' might mean Misplaced Pages culture since he seems to be frustrated with trying to make progress...his pleas to not have editing blocked seem to imply that. Nonetheless, he has agreed to disengage which is what I'm asking editors to do when the editing gets hot. You are experienced enough to let a (perceived) nationalistic slur roll off your back. If you feel that it is bait then don't give the satisfaction of letting someone see your anger but redirect back to a content discussion. Someone else might be taking your lead but getting themselves in trouble soon by not dropping the stick and starting to move towards ranting here at ANI. I was hoping that we get things moving forward again by not issuing warnings to anyone but focus on future editing. There are different people whose hands aren't clean and it would be best for all involved to press forward and let other editors try to help if they are willing. If there are warnings to be issued they are in the round.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly some serious and systemic NPOV problems on that article. I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. Thanatos666's rants are even worse, although the mindset that Greeks are victims of external prejudice is neatly aligned with the problems we have in article-space. If Greek editors are among those responsible for POV problems on an article about a Greek controversy, I hope that other editors may still be permitted to try solving the problems without all getting labelled as hate-criminals. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When I had mentioned above that I believe that some people had/have joined in at the article's talk page, just to promote an ideology, the main person I was thinking and talking about was you; you, imo, are in no position to cry "POV", "breach of NPOV", etc. Even E.E.'s involvement, quite unlike yours, actually began with an argumentation and a real discussion of sorts despite what happened next. I wouldn't have named you, called you out here, but since you've also come here and continued "arguing" and behaving in the same way...
Oh and for the last time, stop calling my comments rants (and more importantly stop repeating the accusations against Greeks editors!), especially when all you've practically done here or at the article's talk page is to repeatedly make accusations against people, who evidently disagree with your POV, and to agree with edits (or even to propose new edits, even more drastic ones, like removing a whole section...) and comments, which evidently agree with your POV... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm hoping that neutral editors may be able to sort this out while the others back away voluntarily. If they would agree to give a few days of latitude to other editors then an acceptable solution might be had.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought E.E.'s statement that Dr. K quoted was a nationalistic insult towards Greeks. Any other interpretation is just stretching it to give the user an unjust pass on the statement. I admit the others involved have not handled this gracefully, but that should not hide the fact that E.E. did commit what they have issue with. This is coming from a completely uninvolved editor who has reviewed the interaction of the involved parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(double edit conflict)

@Berean Hunter: You rightfully imply from the context that with the culture of "preserving chaos" I have meant the Misplaced Pages culture since I was frustrated that the WP article is not making any progress as I am interested to improve the article. If anybody understood something else I apologize for the missunderstanding.

@Thanatos666: Up to this ANI I never commented all your hard core humiliations and rants but only focussed on the article because I had to assume it to be a strange kind of humor, wasn't it?

@Dr.K.: I can confirm that you "rarely edit the article" but you omitted that instead you put a lot of energy in a team-up with selected editors to make sure all others also can't edit and improve the article.

One exception: when you saw the possibility to put in the article that "due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption...the corruption level improved" even though the source you had in said "Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece: Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders". (The reason DanishExpert offered in the talk section many versions about the corruption topic including this POV version is probably simple: he tried being too nice to editors who like to see positive reports about Greece because you reverted beforehand in a rude manner on this topic and put up pressure that the story is positive for Greece.)

If these (only historical editing patterns) are not continued there could be a much better article about the Greek debt crisis.

So why not accept Berean Hunter's offer?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. That's a rather self-serving appraisal of the situtation. You kept adding expired and misleading phraseology based on a 2012 reference even though there was a 2014 reference which made it outdated. This information was corrected by subsequent edits the last of which was the one proposed by Danish Expert. But I have addressed these points in a non-trivial manner, not as you claim spuriously, at the article talkpage so I am not going to expand further on that. Δρ.Κ.  19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I accept that you are ambivolent on the point that a nationality-based attack occured. I disagree obviously but that is ok. You also said that the editor in question agreed to disengage which is a temporary respite. The problem is that he may upon re-engagement start these nationalist-based comments/attacks again. You say that I am experienced enough to let that roll off my back. I guess that is possible but, as is the case with any type of personal attack, making such attacks should not be allowed as a matter of principle and allowing such discriminatory comments on Misplaced Pages without sanctions will embolden these type of users and I don't think this is good for the project. But I don't know why you are telling me to keep-off the article talkpage because my contributions there resulted in more accurate phraseology and SYNTH removal while I have observed CIVIL at least as much as any other editor there. If you think that my presence there is detrimental to article development I would like to know why. As far as your comment about "neutral editors" why do you think I am not "neutral"? My only guide to editing has been since day 1 close compliance to Misplaced Pages's policies. Don't get me wrong though, I would very much like other editors come in and offer their opinions. This is a collaborative project after all and the community consensus is the primary rule. But implying that I am not neutral is not going to be solved by a few days' absence from that talkpage so I would appreciate a clarification. Δρ.Κ.  19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to stay off the talk page but rather requesting it. I also don't think that you are detrimental to article development but would want you to return after a brief break so that you might help with the improvements. At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. If you are editing there during what is supposed to be a hiatus then they would likely re-enter prematurely. The idea is to make space for other editors to work on the article without them being part of the squabbling that has dominated the talk page lately. I believe that it has had a chilling effect as some editors have sidelined themselves and others may not want to enter the fray. This ANI thread is likely seen as TLDR by some editors and a warning by others ("No way I'm jumping into that mess"). If we can let the non-combatants work unabated on the article and talk page they may be able to improve things beyond the present arguments. We'll never know if they aren't granted that latitude.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for sanctions here based on specific and clear grounds which you did not accept and that's fair enough. Although we disagree, I hope you understand that my report was not baseless or frivolous. But to be sidelined because of the ANI report is not the best way to go forward at least in my opinion. As I said before, I participated in a civil manner with all the other editors except the one who chose to attack my national origin. The squabbling as you call it with the other editors is part of a debate on what constitutes SYNTH and is easily resolvable by an RfC, a report to DRN or ORN and other community resources and not by sidelining. You say At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. "Engage in arguments" is part of any normal discussion. Do you think my arguments reached the level of disruption on that talkpage? In conclusion: there is no easy way to answer your comments but one thing seems pretty clear to me: I have no interest whatsoever in participating in a discussion where I am viewed with suspicion or temporarily asked to be sidelined however politely. And by the way, are you going to allow this personal attack by economics made while this report was still open to stand or do you think it helps improve article quality? Δρ.Κ.  00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that you are being viewed suspiciously or that I have somehow singled you out. This certainly hasn't been the case. Since you do not feel inclined to accept my proposal then I will simply leave this thread open and let other editors/admins opine on how to best proceed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely you have not singled me out, since the request you made did not only refer to me. I also don't think you view me with suspicion. But being asked to stay off a talkpage as a result of making an ANI report which as you say will be viewed by others as some sort of combat which will deter their participation etc., indicates this is not prime time for AGF. This is not counting the nationality-based insults and base sarcasm which still blight that page. In any case I thought that was settled. I just told you I refuse to participate under these conditions. Δρ.Κ.  02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with this dispute, after reading my section with a clear head (especialy TheGracefulSlick's comment) I have came to the conclusion that my proposal for all 3 people being blocked was the magnum opus of stupid ideas I have had latley (right behind my RFA and the Raymond Coxon incident), I'm here to make an encyclopedia, not fight. And I'm off to go be competent and productive in my dispute resolutions and editing. Weegeerunner 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek editors compared to "Apple employees" by EconomicsEconomics

I recently found this gem on the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis:

there is an even broader problem: if Apple employees or their family members would obvioulsy block the improvement of the Apple article (having an obvious agenda to make Apple look good even if it means tweaking reality; block-reverting almost everything not compatible with their agenda; mainly active to block/delete and not to contribute; opposing any change of obvious POV/SYNTH/and so on; filling lengthy unnecessary discussions but not specifying what they really want or oppose; not even contributing to the article with their special Apple knowhow and sources), they should probably refrain from editing this article because of obvious WP:CONFLICT; is that different with the Greek debt crisis? Or better wait until every (competent and willing) author is fent away? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So now we have it. Greeks are employees of Greece and are not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. It is good to know. Now that we have this new model of international wiki collaboration, American editors are no longer going to be allowed near any American articles - Uncle Sam being a very demanding employer as we all know. British ones better stay away from UK articles, (who could be their employer, the Queen perhaps?). Germans we all know are employed by Merkel, and so it goes on. Taking this logic a step further, editors who do not divulge any details of their background or ethnicity are considered unemployed and are given full access to all articles as being free of any COI or agenda. Welcome to the new collaborative wiki-model according to EconomicsEconomics. Δρ.Κ.  10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcasm and general pissed-off-ness really aren't helpful.--v/r - TP 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you realise that no matter how one approaches this subject someone will find something to complain about. If I sound serious then people will call me angry. If I try some humour in rebutting this nonsense they will call it sarcasm. The fact remains nationality-based attacks need to be discouraged on wiki and I see no action on that front. I don't think criticising or shooting the messenger is a good approach. In any case I also don't think you should expect me to be happy when I report someone for using such base tactics. Δρ.Κ.  03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth editwarring to retain BLP violations in talk page

User:PeterTheFourth has restored three redactions of his BLP violating material (and his first inclusion appears a bit point and gratuitous, as well as the gratuitous BLP violation on my talk page). initial edit using name gratuitously in violation of consensus and BLP. revert BLP vio 1 (my redaction), revert BLP vio 2(Bosstopher redaction), revert BLP vio 3 (my redaction). He cites as consensus but it is very clear in that discussion that mentioning the accused name on the article page are very strict and talk page discussion should only use the name to formulate content, not idly repeat allegations of rape that have been investigated and rejected. Other noticeboard discussions have ended with cautious approach and not to add it . To date, the consensus is that Noticeboard requirements cannot be met. He repeats the BLP violation on my talk page by gratuitously mentioning the name of the accused person who has been exonerated multiple times and claiming he is an "alleged rapist." There is no point in doing this other than to violate BLP and be inflammatory. The person is not a public figure, is not facing charges, has no biography on wiki and there is no venue (or need) to defend him of these charges or even explore them so using non-public figures name in connection with a vile crime is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF and WP:BLPTALK especially in light of previous discussion and the current discussion. Repeating it on my talk page shows an attitude of indifference to BLP violations. User:PeterTheFourth is a SPA with few mainspace edits and that began his career editing the GamerGate ArbCom page.First edit. His singular focus appears to be related to topics regarding rape and rape threats. Edit warring to maintain a BLP and restore BLP violations should not be tolerated. He's been here before and obviously knows policy and his way around and should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward is right, something about User:PeterTheFourth's behavior just doesn't add up to me. Weegeerunner 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He may not be a "public figure" but because he filed a lawsuit against Columbia University, he has been talked about a lot, at least in the local media. He is not facing charges but his identity is far from hidden. Liz 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't really that local, so wouldn't that be a case for his identity? Weegeerunner 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz That's not the WP BLP criteria. We are deferential to BLP's and his lawsuit is not notable in and of itself. The article about performance art is not the place to accuse him by name or defend him except as it relates to the artwork. It's a slippery slope which was noted in both BLPN discussions. See WP:LOWPROFILE essay and also the WP:NPF policy Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. It's indefensible to repeat the claim that he is a rapist especially when there is no place for exculpatory material. Note, that PtF only adds negative information and but reverts the addition of exculpatory court documents regarding the lawsuit you mention. That reversion (or court documents) iswas consistent with BLP (policy) and keeps the article from becoming WP:COATRACK (for the legal cases), but the addition of the negative onesmaterial arewas not consistent with BLP policy - the addition of negative information, removal of excuplatory information speak to POV editing and edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

With greatest respect to all concerned, this specific situation is an absolute thicket. Reviewing the bidding for bystanders, as best I can. First, we have the customary issues surrounding identification of alleged rape victims. In this case, we have the further complication that the rape victim has sought attention through performance art about the alleged assault. We have a host of interlocking hearings and proceedings at the University and in various courts, past, present, and contemplated. We further have Misplaced Pages's gender gap and gamergate problems, so it behooves the project to take care that it reached a policy that comports with public standards. In that regard, identifying the rape victim but declining to identify the alleged assailant might raise editorial eyebrows. We also have the potential for absurdity, should the performance artist call attention the alleged assailant's name in the performance. This is a situation that would perplex (and is perplexing) the most experienced editors and journalists. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Ibanned — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein - If the matter is framed as an alleged rape victim and a potential slander victim, the path forward becomes more clear. Of course, that would require coming at this matter from a position of impartiality. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite: agreed. dHeyward: you're involved, along with half of Misplaced Pages. I'm not addressing you; I'm addressing bystanders who might not be aware of the nuances of a situation which would strain the policies of most (perhaps all) newsrooms today. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes MarkBernstein, I am involved in ANI requests I start. It's the reason you should not be commenting here. I don't wish the discussion to degrade into ad hominem arguments like in GamerGate talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Posting to acknowledge that I've read this thread- I don't see much to the complaint. You'll be able to see on the talk page multiple mentions of Paul Nungesser's name per the consensus that discussing his involvement in the case is not a BLP violation. I don't imagine that he himself objects to being mentioned, and he has given interviews as Nungesser about this. Per accusations of edit warring (the shocking transgression of not wanting other users to edit my comments) I'll step back from that article until the dispute here is resolved. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Of note are my two attempts to discuss the issue DHeyward perceives with my mentioning (redacted) name on his talk page here and here, which were deleted without a reply. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion appears to false as the BLP violating name only appears in link titles. And yes, I reverted your BLP violations on my talk page and asked you not to repeat them. You declined. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears in the time since I went to bed last night and I woke up this morning somebody has gone through and removed countless uses of Paul Nungesser's name from the talk page against consensus, including from straight quotations of sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Even on this page, he ignores BLP and consensus from the article to restore a BLP violation for a pointy reason. Does anyone need to see the name of someone accused of rape with no charges, not a public figure and consensus not to mention him? Any admins think it's necessary or within policy for this ? It's a clear attempt to smear him and PtF has a history of it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This SPA has a clear agenda and masks his repeated disruption of the gamergate articles in feigned politeness, even responding to harsh criticisms with 'Thanks!' etc. Which evidently works on those who should be blocking him for his actions. You're not supposed to accuse people of being socks without hard evidence and I have no hard evidence so I won't say that he is the most obvious sock that I've ever seen. But I think at the very least he should be topic banned. He wouldn't even be allowed to edit the articles if he hadn't made 500 edits on these articles before the 500 edit restriction was put into place. He is the poster boy for why people shouldn't be grandfathered in. Handpolk (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You say you don't have any hard evidence except I see you describe PeterTheFourth as a sock with absolute certainty (diff diff). Please cease smearing this account unless you have diffs to tie this editor with another account. Liz 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said it was obvious. That is not saying he is a sock with absolute certainty. For example, I could say it is obvious you are a woman who is deeply offended by the rape portions of this issue and that shapes your views and passion on GGC. However I have no evidence you are a woman or that you are deeply offended by the rape portions of this and that that shapes your views and passion on GGC. It's not absolutely certain at all. Just something that I could say seems obvious. To be clear, I'm not saying that. Just giving you an example to demonstrate that what you said is wrong.

This is the second time there was confusion over what I meant. The first time another editor misunderstood me in the same way you did. So I took greater care this time to make it clear I'm not certain and it is not an accusation. Hope that helps clear things up for you. Handpolk (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to intimidate me? I don't see you doing demographic analyses of any other editor. You have no idea what "deeply offends" me or what "shapes" my "views and passions" on that Gamergate article. This personal profiling of an editor commenting is completely out-of-place in an ANI discussion. It's like you assume all women think the same thing and feel the same way, that is obvious although that doesn't mean I can say it with absolute certainty. Because, you know, there's an invisible difference between the two.

And I'm not upset or offended, I just think you made an incredibly stupid edit that makes me take you even less seriously than I took you before. Liz 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk I have no evidence that you smell like poo, and it's absolutely not certain at all. But it's obvious that you smell of poo. (See the problem with this form of reasoning?) Bosstopher (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

His very first edit is to GamerGate arbcom is quacking. He's obviously a SPA with previous experience. He has just over 200 mainspace edits (71 to Gamergate controversy, next highest page is A Voice for Men with 16). He has nearly 300 edits to the GamerGate controversy talk page, though. Over half his edits are GamerGate article related. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• edit conflict

Handpolk can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has. On PeterTheFourth's talk page another editor commented on interpreted aspersion. Please don't just say that something exists without specification and evidence.

The mentioned article says "Paul Nungesser ..., as new details come to light, he’s speaking out and fighting back". I don't think that Misplaced Pages would be in danger of being sued in regard to reference to Nungesser's name and I guess it would be up to consensus in the article as to whether it would be of encyclopaedic benefit to the article for the name to be used. Currently the Matt.Perf. article uses the above citation for the text "Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was acquainted filed additional complaints with the university against the same student." We link to the article presenting his name but don't ourselves present the name. I don't see any reason that we can't do so and it is surely a content issue as to whether we should or not. GregKaye 09:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that we have a BLP policy that doesn't allow us to publish certain things such as accusing someone of rape (whether we are repeating it or not)? Particularly, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF? You are aware that the BLPN discussion has already happened and the answer was "No", correct? I not please read it, then redact it. You should not be publishing his name per policy regardless of the where you got it. It's not a question whether you can find it, it's a question of human decency. We don't have an article on him and the details that exonerate him aren't relevant to the article that involves him. It's policy not to name or accuse people of crimes and he isn't notable outside of that. We can link to lots of stories that are BLP violations on WP. --DHeyward (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why it is considered "pro-GamerGate" to support one side of this issue, and "anti-GamerGate" to support the other? Which side is which, in the case of this dispute? JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Caricatured answer - "pro-GamerGate" = Feminists are deranged....look at what this crazy feminist has done; "anti-GamerGate" = women are victims and need challenge nasty men. This then extends to any battle-of-the-sexes topic that can be identified in terms of these caricatured positions. In this case, self-publicising woman accuses a poor man; self-empowering woman challenges brutal male actions through art. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is: because the world is a depressing and miserable place. Alternatively go to /r/KotakuInAction and search for Sulkowicz. Then go to /r/Gamerghazi or /r/SRSFeminism and search for Sulkowicz and compare. Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a gamergate thing (check the search results, for example)- speaking personally, my interest in it comes because it falls within the general sphere of 'social justice'. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg -- "can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has" I can do you one better. He just admitted it right here. This 'social justice' distinction is semantics. Off of Misplaced Pages GGC has grown and become about more than that which is on this article. And people that are sometimes called 'Social Justice Warriors' (SJW's) have taken up the non-GG side. PeterTheFourth has essentially just admitted being an SJW. By definition, having a clear agenda. Handpolk (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

be definition, everyone has bias and agenda. the issue is whether or not such adversely affects your ability to edit within Misplaced Pages's policies and goals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no bias or agenda. Unless you call wanting neutral and unbiased articles a biased agenda. I agree with each side on many things. At present it's usually unnecessary for me to say when I disagree with the ggers because they are already losing so badly. Handpolk (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is right. you have asserted that already! You go go go Mr/Ms Purely Neutral YOU! It is certainly enlightening for me to see what pure neutrality in editing looks like as I had a completely different understanding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, no bias or agenda, only wanting neutrality. Is that why you called me a "SJW shill" even though I have only made one or two edits to the Gamergate article? I have treated you civilly, I even responded to some of your questions. I don't understand how you can't see you can't have it both ways, you can't declare yourself only wanting neutrality while at the same time trying to figure out who is on which "side". This is just childish behavior. Liz 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, suggest Handpolk rethink their comment. Having an interest in social justice is not by definition a "social justice warrior", and generally speaking that term is used as a dismissive pejorative and could be construed as a personal attack. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also used proudly as a self-identifier. I imagine this will come up again so I am willing to submit to your pedantry. How would you like me to word that to your liking, while communicating the same thing? Handpolk (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: If your intent is to say someone is advocating some form of social justice platform, then just say that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza it's not GamerGate related except for PeterTheFourth being a GamerGate SPA . As such, there are contributors here that are the usual GamerGate contributors. I made a "new section" post to the talk page of the "Matress" article (unrelated to GamerGate) to explain an edit I made and ask a question and two regular gamergate editors immediately answered. They had edited there before I believe but not everyone that has chimed in has, I believe. I didn't direct the Matress talk page question at anyone in particular and I suspect the very blatant and pointy use of the name was baiting but of course, that would require a crystal ball. On its face, it's not hardly coincidence. Other regular Matrress editors responded appropriately and noted the decision not to name the accused and highlighted two BLPN noticeboard discussions. Why Bernstein is commenting on my ANI request is unknown as that violates the terms of a GamerGate IBAN (I had requested the IBAN be lifted earlier and hopefully it will be after this ANI shows it's pointless) but it's not unusual to see the same 4 or 5 editors in the same place at the same time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like to clarify the reason I used the name. I was trying to demonstrate that their was not a contentious statement and thereby not covered by BLPTALK. For this reason I used the phrase (paraphrasing) "It's not contentious that is ." While normally I tend to use "the accused" instead of the guys name I dont (as I explained and Aquillion reiterated her) think its a BLP violation. I also thought that " is " reads better than "the accused is the accused." Was not trying to bait at all, and am not really sure exactly what it is I'd be trying to bait you into. If anything I've had far more confrontational interactions with Peter while editing than you, so if I had a motive to bait anyone editing the mattress page surely it would be him and not you? Bosstopher (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

As others pointed out to you on that page, simply mentioning him on the talk page doesn't seem to violate WP:BLPTALK, which states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The fact that he was accused is not controversial and is well-sourced, and I don't see anyone implying more than that there. This doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the article, of course, but I don't think WP:BLP requires censoring it on the talk page. In the talk page where this was discussed, I notice that you mentioned, by way of comparison, "If GamerGate BLPTALK rules are applied...", which I assume is what's confusing you here; the issue that led to so many talk-page redactions that case wasn't just that names shouldn't be mentioned, it was that people were posting accusations that were both contentious and poorly-sourced. Posting an accused's name in a context that implies guilt when that's not well-sourced wouldn't be allowed; but (provided the accusation itself is well-sourced to BLP-quality sources) simply mentioning their name in talk isn't generally a problem as long as you're cautious not to make poorly-sourced accusations. Notice that all of the policies you cite there are cautiously worded, encouraging us to think carefully about when and where to use names, but not placing universal bans on their use; given that, and given that censoring someone else's comments is generally considered a pretty big deal, I think you overstepped somewhat in removing the name repeatedly. Also notice that the talk page guidelines explicitly state that "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and normally you should stop if there is any objection"; you should definitely have stopped removing it after one revert. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be confusing you is BLP applies everywhere. BLPTALK allows links for the limited purposes of discussion for adding content (GamerGate articles don't even allow that, regardless of quality, if the content contains anything that wouldn't be allowed in an article on WP). All of BLP still applies including WP:NPF, WP:CRIME (please read them and apply them to talk pages). If the name were being used as proposals for content, it's fine. If it's being used to gratuitously connect him to an accusation of a crime (this case), it's not allowed. We don't just repeat accusations on talk or article space, regardless of sourcing, because BLP applies everywhere, all the time. --DHeyward (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You kind of leave out the fact that what the GGC page doesnt allow is a re-re-re-re-re-re-hashing of claims that have been established as FALSE by every reliable sources of the highest quality from the point of time they were first made. Very different circumstances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all different. The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go. He is innocent as far as writing about him here is concerned. Writing about him here only serves one puprose: to keep those allegations alive because he is not known outside those allegations. As an example, there are plenty of published and reliable sources that go into details concerning Quinn. We don't write about them and it isn't because there are no sources. We make a choice that BLP policy does not allow us to write about her sex life. Likewise, BLP policy does not let us explore unproven allegations against the person here as was apparent in both BLPN discussions and the talk page. What did you think was different or do you think this is about "The Truth(tm)?" --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again -- just to illustrate the general concept at issue here -- suppose Ozymandias is a living person, and a sculptor has created a statue of him. In an interview about the work, the sculptor refers to her effort to capture his "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command." Numerous commentators agree that she had well those passions read.

Now, a sneering visage is not a crime but it's generally considered uncomplimentary; it's also now the crux of the notable work of art and of its reception. We could find ourselves in the awkward position of naming the subject if the artist accused him of regrettable traits that are not crimes -- being a cad, being a brute, being a vampire, being a Republican -- but not if she accused him of a crime until and unless the charges are proven, and even if the crime -- revealing secret surveillance, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest -- is considered by some excusable, or justified, or even commendable (cf. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience). What would we do if the allegation concerned something which is culpable but frequently not prosecuted, such as striking someone (for which see Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)? Again, we risk stumbling into a result which is both ridiculous and, given the press attention Misplaced Pages's missteps on gender are receiving, likely to be ridiculed. I don't know the answer, but I'm confident it's not obvious. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like "The Zoepost". We could critique it in detail as art. Talk about "Ethics" it brings up. Ignore the vile accusations in the name of covering what the artist/author wanted us to cover. But....let's not. Let's agree that there are aspects of accusation, even in art and literature, that go beyond simple description and venture into defamatory and salacious details that are not necessary to expose in order to highlight the social issues. As an example, "Roe v. Wade" was anonymous with profound impact in society. Is Roe's current view, even if passionate and personal, relevant to the social impact of the case or can we write about it without ever knowing who she was? The art in this case is passionate and socially relevant. It is a notable work with influence. But in the end, that art and its influence doesn't hang on the balance of the accusation. So far, he is innocent of the accusation. In your example, the case would be that the artist accurately captured a "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" but we would not say the artist captured "Ozymandias' frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" especially when reliable sources commented on it before the subject was even known and Ozymandias was not known to anyone outside the artists small circle (i.e. what is Mona Lisa smiling about?). In her Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, she notes that both actors consented to the acts they portrayed. One actor even portrays what is arguably a rape by a rapist. Does it matter who it is or how convincing his portrayal is or do we accept the fact that he is not a rapist because an authority said he is not? The argument is that he is an actor, therefore it was an act, and consensual, not a rape - case closed. The irony and similarity is not lost on the accuser, whence the name of the piece and the disclaimer. Irony does not mean we are held to different standards after such findings, though. Neither the actor nor the accused can be called "rapists" in Misplaced Pages and insinuating as much misses the foundation of our BLP policy and fundamental "innocent until proven guilty." The accused is not a public figures that had a life notable outside the one-dimensional accusation of rape - it now defines him. We give extreme deference to such individuals but also without condemning their accuser. Consider another case where a woman is raped by "John Doe" and testifies as such at trial. He is convicted but 20 years later is released on DNA evidence that overwhelmingly supports his innocence. Does that have any impact on whether the woman was raped? Nope. Does it mean she perjured herself at trial? Nope. Does it mean the man is innocent of rape? Yes. These seemingly contradictory statements must be portrayed on Misplaced Pages. We do not have to pick a side and we should not try to sway favor in any direction. Above all we should fairly present people, especially non-public figures that are only defined in the public's eye by the accuser, in a non-negative light abdsent a conviction. In this case, the only fair way to present the very notable and multi-dimensional art and artist, is to portray the accused anonymously. There is no way to fairly mention him only in the context of whether he did or did not commit rape. It is not up to the reader to do this, it is up to Misplaced Pages editors to not make Misplaced Pages the vehicle for such judgements. The art is notable, the act of rape, whether true or not is not notable in and of itself. The art is reflection of the experience of the artist and not something we can use to neutrally portray the accused.--DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this

1. a complaint about differences in applying BLP?
2. a SPA investigation against User:PeterTheFourth?
3. a proxy fight for Gamergate issues?

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a rant. Liz 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for participating! I'm sure you thought your comment was helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an ANI complaint for edit warring a BLP violation into a specific article talk page and continuing to edit war that BLP violation after the talk page discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard discussions decided BLP applied and the accused should not be named. Three reversions on the talk page, two violation on my talk page and a violation here (and reversion). BLP didn't change. All the other stuff is evidence of PtF being WP:NOTHERE. --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question- are you referring to different BLPN discussions than these two? Because the consensus on both of these is that it's fine to mention them on talk, but might be iffy including it in the article without provisos to ensure that he's properly represented. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like DHeyward's BLP issues has been asked and answered. More than once. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rocky, I answered it above. No, they have no consensus to add them because the constraints cannot be met. It was listed for you here at the artcile talk page. as to the results from a long time editor of the article. It's why the name no longer exists on hte talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So (assuming DHeyward's assertion about consensus is correct) there's no consensus, and DHeyward is insisting on his interpretation of BLP (and he's edit warring in the process). Rather than working on consensus. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No rocky, there is no consensus to add the names in BLPN (as PeterTheFourth claimed) and they placed a large hurdle for BLP at both hearings. The conclusion is that the hurdle can't be met and it is a BLP violation to add it. It's laid out for you by another editor, not me. Have a go at "reading." . In any case, that hurdle prevents using the name except for cases where it's being proposed for addition to the article. That's the purpose of talk pages and it's why the name isn't found in the article or talk page today. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What I don't see is a consensus to support DHeyward's refactoring. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit war on PeterTheFourth's part, if there's no BLP violation. The evidence looks like 1 2 looks like the consensus was there isn't a BLP violation. Which means by going against consensus, DHeyward was the one doing contentious editing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, why have Gamergate editors arrived at Mattress Performance? DHeyward, I was thinking of asking you this on your talk page, but may as well ask here. Sarah (SV) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I presumed they followed me. I didn't edit or comment or revert anything. I came from reviewing legal terms and seeing the incorrect redirect from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." I didn't even know they edited the page before. I certainly didn't ping them or edit anything controversial. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at ANI for other reasons. I saw familiar names and was wondering what that all was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I was thinking specifically of you. You were involved in Gamergate and now you're there. It's a concern if those problems are to be transferred somewhere else. Sarah (SV) 02:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Whoa, back up the train. I was not a party to GamerGate and I am rarely an editor there. I have one sanction and that's an IBAN with MarkBernstein but he hasn't edited "mattress". I have not brought gamerGate to mattress. Far from it. PTF edited the mattress talk page 9 minutes after I did. I don't know when he edited it before. Certainly not anything that I commented on or did anything with. I've been here 10 years and have varied interests and articles. I can't stop people from following me. PTF is a gamergate SPA though. his edit history shows it as WP:DUCK.--DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is my first edit to the talk page, and this is my first edit to the article. I don't believe either of them were 9 minutes after any of your contributions. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use Editor Interaction Analyzer to figure it out, DHeyward isn't wrong you did edit it once 9 minutes after he did, but it looks like PeterTheFourth started editing there first, so they did not follow DHeyward into the topic. Also, I generally think the name should of the accused should be avoided, on the principle of do-no-harm, but that is not policy and as others have noted the name is available from reliable sources (quick google search shows it in The Guardian, Washington Post, and the National Post.) Strongjam (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, you've made 244 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which seems fairly involved. The problem is that we have (I believe) three women on the Mattress talk page and c. 15 men, plus assorted IPs. As a result there has been a locker-room atmosphere at times. Opinion doesn't divide entirely along gender lines, but mostly. Add Gamergate (or even a perception of it) and the number of women will either decline or at least not increase. I would really like to try to avoid that.

I agree with you about the accused's name, by the way, but the name is widely known, so it's not an outing or anything urgent. But I agree that posting it is best avoided. Sarah (SV) 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's not my intention to drive anyone away. I brought the problem here so it's not on that talk page. My edits to GG talk put me below PtF and I had a 3 month head start in september of last years. there are a myriad of articles they edit as well that are gamergate related that I don't touch including the men's rights nonsense. My only questions was about the BLP and I posted a notice about my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't think it was useful to throw the name into the debate, though. or onto my talk page. I objected to the pointiness of that, but brought it here for resolution. I didn't ask for oversight, just why we were naming him. It is in lots of sources including his lawsuit but, as you said, it's best avoided because it is shaky BLP grounds to portray such a one-dimensional aspect of a living person that isn't notable outside the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Long time editor reports SPA for clear BLP violations and SV shows up to - question the motives of the long time editor - my my. This certainly narrows the list of potential sockmasters. - 46.28.50.100 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor here, this item just caught my eye because I'm getting a bit concerned about lack of care taken with BLPs. I only know about this incident what I've been able to glean from a quick read of the article and an even quicker skim of the talk page and this report. My thoughts on this matter are:
- BLP applies to all living persons, therefore it also applies to Sulkowicz. That means editors must not state that the complaint was false until it is actually proven false - not just "not responsible". Suggest "disputed", or at the very most, "unsubstantiated".
- What about this incident makes it more notable than all the other alleged rapes that are reported every day? If it's just the performance art piece, then write the article about the art piece and prune all the extraneous 'he said, she said' from it as it is of no lasting importance to the art world.
- Court cases appear to still be ongoing, so perhaps editors should wait until there's an actual judicial finding.
- What encyclopaedic purpose does it serve to name the alleged rapist? If in doubt - don't. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, thanks for making those points. In fact there are five people to whom BLP applies: the accused and four people who say they were assaulted: Sulkowicz, two other women and a man. We have editors saying or implying that the last four are lying, and that Sulkowicz may have broken the law by filing a false police complaint. In addition, there has been a locker-room atmosphere on talk guaranteed to drive most women (and not only women) away. Sarah (SV) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I am not subtle and don't pick up much on atmosphere; what I think that article needs is substantial application of the proverbial blue pencil to prune it down to something worthy of being in an encyclopaedia. I don't think it's actually a BLP violation to name the alleged rapist (his name appears in reliable sources); it's just unnecessary (and also unnecessary is the edit-warring over it). The most egregious BLP violation I see on the page is against Sulkowicz, in the repetition of a borderline defamatory claim from an anonymously published source. I also see BLP violations against Sulkowicz in this discussion, here (flat-out stating that the allegation was false) and here (apparently satirical, but a statement such as that in this context is so outright offensive that it really shouldn't have been made, even as satire). Daveosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus This edit you highlighted never mentions Sulkowicz and is in the context of Misplaced Pages (read it again). It is a restatement of "Innocent until proven guilty." If you look at my other examples, wikipedia is not in the business of deciding one story over another. Even if they appear to you to be contradictory, they are not. We write the encyclopedia as if the charges are not true for edits related to the accused and we state what the accuser has said accurately and without judgement. My example to Bernstein about the "exonerated by DNA convicted rapist" is apropos: we don't treat the victim as if she is a liar or perjurer and we don't treat the exonerated rapist as a convict. That dichotomy must exist and your insertion of Sulkowicz into my statement does not accurately reflect what I said as I never mentioned her. We do write about the accused as if he is innocent. That's BLP and if you follow the current discussions on the talk page you will see I am consistent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I've just double checked to make sure I used the right diff. The exact words I took issue with were "The charge that the accused committed rape is false". That is not so. The charge is unproven, possibly even unsubstantiated, but to describe it as "false" is a BLP violation of the person who made the allegation, who is named throughout the article, until such time as the person who made it is actually found to have made a false allegation. "Innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus you shortened my quote again. In its entirety, "The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go". You missed the entire qualifying point which dictates how we write. When we write about the accused, he is innocent - we are not discussing the person who is making the accusation. This is very important and fundamental to WP:BLPCRIME and the U.S. legal system. A person is innocent of rape until proven guilty, not "unproven rapist until proven guilty" or "unsubstantiated rapist" (both would be BLP violations if written that way). You seem to be claiming that this is related to the person making the charge (whom I didn't mention) and that it casts doubt on their veracity. It does not. They are separate accounts of the same event and we don't take sides. One of the reasons we don't mention criminal accusations for WP:NPF is precisely to avoid this confusion but it doesn't alleviate us of two things: presumption of innocence of the accused and accurate recounting of the statement by the complainant. They can be contradictory. They cannot cross over each other to violate BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) The relevant policy in BLPCRIME is "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot see any reason to name the target of this accusation (who is not notable for any other reason), let alone to continually re-add the name when others rightly point out that it has no place in the article. DHeyward was right to refactor it and PeterTheFourth ought to at the very least be warned against future BLP violations of this sort. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also completely uninvolved, and I agree with the two statements above.

I would add: these days, at least in the US, there is often a media climate around rape cases of "guilty unless proved innocent," rather than "innocent until proven guilty." Alleged victims cannot be named, while alleged perpetrators are frequently named. Now, for the record, so that PtF doesn't get the wrong idea: I don't, for even a minute, (a) suggest that such an approach is entirely unjustified, nor (b) that alleged perpetrators aren't frequently guilty. But that setup does give a person an opportunity to accuse a person on page one, ruining the perpetrator's life; if a charge proves unfounded, the reporting of that goes to the "back pages," and the perpetrator's life is still ruined. But such machinations are for the news media, not for an encyclopedia.

For that reason alone, an encyclopedia like this needs to make no assumptions whatsoever on anything until jurisprudence is finished. And that means no names for now.

If you don't like that, PtF, go to Wikinews. It is, in principle, a media outlet, and may have different rules on such issues. I don't know. But you just can't do this here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! all of those professional victims - everywhere! If one believed even a tenth of them, why this would be a Rape Culture we are living in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand in what context I was using the accused's name, StevenJ81. I was never advocating for its use in the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for not yelling, and not being sarcastic, like the previous poster. I really didn't deserve that.

No, I understand you're mainly talking about the talk page. But really, there is no reason you can't use substitute terminology (like "the accused") even on the talk page. I even appreciate that it's not rocket science to figure out who "the accused" (or "the alleged perpetrator" or whatever terminology you want to use) is, even if you know nothing about the case prior. But IMO, there is nothing gained from actually using the name, other than the relief of awkward verbiage/sentence construction. And there are many good reasons to hold off on using the name, for any reason, until the judicial process has run its course. Once the judicial process has run its course, either (a) he's guilty, his name will be out there, and he will have to live with it, or (b) he's not guilty, and deserves his privacy and reputation intact. That will all be soon enough. No need to rush now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern and the attitude of staying cautious. In other situations, I would agree with not using the name of an alleged criminal in any context. However, I think that when the accused gives interviews and readily identifies as that person to media, it becomes absurd to insist on 'he who must not be named'-esque redactions of that name when discussing him- which is what DHeyward was edit warring to enact. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

, let's be clear. In your accusation of "edit warring", I made one (1) revert (please provide diffs of more reverts if you continue the accusation). Then I came here. Two different editors either made modifications or completed the redaction on the talk page based on consensus. You deliberately reverted three times on that page to restore the BLP violation and repeated it twice on my talk page after being asked to stop. My one revert has been backed by consensus is hardly edit warring and we are here precisely because I wasn't going to edit war on an article talk page - as it stands, your comments on the article talk page are redacted but not by me. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for speaking civilly. DHeyward, keep cool. I'll respond, then I won't have more to say. Peter, the most I could say about your comment two points up is that if I happened upon that talk page, and nobody were fighting, I might not bother trying to invoke a BLP violation and redaction a priori. (Not sure, actually, but might not.) After all, as you say, the accused has gone public. That having been said, my practice, both here and in my personal (real) life, is not to use names in a situation like that. If I had written it myself, I would personally have He who must not be named it. And if anyone (like DHeyward) chooses to invoke BLP and redaction in this situation, they are really entirely justified in doing so, all the more so because they have CONSENSUS on their side. Even if there is a little space to think about leniency in a case like this, I think it's very bad precedent to do so. It's far better to err on the other side. So I'd really like to urge you to leave the name out and move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The BLP aspect is a bit overblown (the info is public in multiple RS's) but PeterTheFourth's edit warring was quite inappropriate and there's no obvious encyclopedic upside to including the person's name on the talk page. So it's better to just defer to people's sensibilities and leave it out, instead of wp:battling over whether it's permissible to keep it in. Re SlimVirgin's complaint of a locker-room atmosphere on the talkpage, I do see some crappy attempts to litigate the disputed facts there, but it's mostly from other editors than PeterTheFourth. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What is required to include the name as per BobMeowCat's section? What would be wrong about adding it? Why would it be important to add it rather than leave it out? Has the use of the name on TP involved oversightable claims? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who's pushed to use the guy's name from the getgo, the reason is that these discussions become interminably confusing when people try—and fail, since Misplaced Pages seems to want to pretend that any reliable sources are doing the same—to shove the genie back into the lamp. Anyone coming to that talkpage for the first time will be lucky not to have their faces melted off from the horrific circumlocutions, which aside from the purely atrocious reading by themselves also make it far more difficult than necessary to get anything done because it's extremely hard to figure out who the hell people are talking about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"The accused" is hardly difficult to figure out whom is being discussed. WP:BLPCRIME is pretty easy to understand especially if the person is notable for only one event. In 5 years when nobody remembers, let's not have an article that immortalizes an unproven allegation. It's the whole point of not using WP as a weapon to smear people. To the extent we have to mention the accusation, we do so but it doesn't require a name any more than her movie requires a credit for the male actor. But we're not talking about the use of the name for the article, this particular instance is naming a rape suspect gratuitously in talk pages for the sole purpose of defaming him and naming him as much as possible. Edit warring his name back into the talk page against consensus and against BLPN disussions and against BLPCRIME policy. --DHeyward (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the PSR of Albania

The article affected was: People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Recently, there has been an edit war in this article. The reason was a dispute between what should appear in the country's infobox entry on religion. I think that it should appear, as it has done until a week ago, Religion: None (State atheism). However, there is another user, User:Guy Macon, that thinks that the religion entry should be removed. The consensus they base their edits upon is one reached in Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Since the PSR of Albania was not an individual, I don't think that resolution applies here, since a person's view on religion is very different from a country's official position on it. To begin with, it is important that the PSR of Albania was state atheist. The infobox should reflect that. How? I think the best way was the former one. I am concerned that if the entry on religion is removed, people won't know if it was state atheist, or just that we forgot to add that information, or maybe that we just don't know.

--WBritten (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

From the closing admin (Guy) -- no relation other than us both having really cool names:

"The result is unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious. In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case." (some emphasis added, some is in the original).

"In any article" seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think that it should be stated in the infobox that Albania was state atheist. It's a relevant fact. WBritten (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the PSR of Albania, which stopped existing in 1992. In their constitution it was stated that Albania had no official religion. It later pursued state atheist policies, and mosques, churches, and synagogues were used as schools, gymnasiums, libraries... This is why I think that the infobox was right. It said that the PSR of Albania had no official religion (Religion:None), and at the same time added that state atheism was enforced. Nowhere in the infobox it was stated that atheism was the official religion (because it is not a religion, to begin with). WBritten (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Was the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? Genuine question. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The PSR of Albania had no official state hobby. --WBritten (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, it had no official state religion. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran (for example) has no official state hobby, but does have an official state religion.--WBritten (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual answer here, and the "Not Collecting Stamps" thing is a valid point. But surely the question should be whether Albania simply had no official religion or whether it was officially atheist, and those are two very different positions (the former is equivalent to not collecting stamps, but the latter would be the equivalent of antiphilatelism). I don't know the answer, but that seems to me to be the question. Mr Potto (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, "not collecting stamps" as a state hobby would be like having "Not Sikh" as a state religion. It does not work for me because it's too specific. Okay, if you don't mind me doing a thought experiment, what if PSR Albania did not allow stamp collecting, but modern Albania did? What if PSR Albania did not allow its citizens to have any hobby? I think that that is different that not having a specific hobby as state hobby. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the reason I am so persistent is because the PSR of Albania was officially state atheist. That's why that was reflected in the infobox in the first place. It wasn't simply a non-denominational country, it was an atheist state, and actively fought against religious institutions. WBritten (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that the results of the RfC, which focussed explicitly on articles about individual persons, have any direct and automatic applicability on the article on a state. There are no doubt very good reasons for generally omitting that parameter on most individual people, just as there are no doubt good arguments for omitting it on many states. However, whether or not the well-known policies of socialist Albania, which were not merely non-religious but quite explicitly anti-religious, are notable and salient enough as a character trait of that state to justify inclusion in the box, is a matter of editorial decision that ought to be decided through open discussion on the talkpage. I notice that there actually has been some reasonable talk there. There definitely can't be any justification for the type of edit-warring that has been going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"State atheism" is a very nebulous concept and doesn't belong in the infobox. The German Democratic Republic was officially atheist, and one might find citation that say that atheism was enforced by the State. The truth is somewhat different: Religious people were not admitted to the leading party (SED), were not promoted in their jobs, if they got a good job outside the churches. On the other side, both Catholic and Lutheran churches remained open, some people (about 1 or 2 % of the population) went there to celebrate the Mass, and church dignitaries were used in inofficial diplomatic negotiations as intermediaries. Under the circumstances, it is better to remove the parameter from the infobox, cease the edit war, discuss what exactly happened at the time in Albania (a content dispute, possibly) and then re-evaluate the facts according to the closing statement of the RfC: "...In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case..." (which extends the validity of the closure to states and countries, stating a good reason) and "Another issue is noted: those who prominently self-identify as having a philosophical position on religion, but one which implicitly or explicitly rejects faith. In these cases in my view it may be legitimate to mention secularism or atheism as a philosophy, and that would have qualified support according to the debate, but it is clear that they are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such." The question is then "Did the PSR Albania introduce a religious system to be used to oppress the previous existing religions, or did they State maintain a philosophical/sociological position to reject religion officially? If it was the former, the name of the new (pseudo-)religion could be mentioned, if it was the latter, the closure of the Rfc sustains omitting the parameter. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967. I think that if we remove the parameter from the infobox, readers of that article won't know that the PSR of Albania was state atheist, and may be think that it was just like any other country, or even that we don't know what its official religion was. The position of the PSR of Albania was not only philosophical/sociological. It was a political position. That's why I think it should be included. Maybe we could have an alternate parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist" or something along those lines. I still think that in no way did the former infobox claim that atheism was a religion, and I'd bet that most readers of that article understood that the official stance on religion of the PSR of Albania was state atheism. It was not a new religion, it was not a pseudo-religion. It was a state policy, proclaimed and actively pursued by the government. --WBritten (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., as far as I can tell, your opinion on the content dispute (or mine, or WBritten's, or Kraxler's, etc. ) is completely irrelevant, especially considering that ANI is supposed to deal with user behavior, not article content disputes. This content dispute has been settled already. I posted an RfC. I asked for and got an uninvolved and experienced administrator to write a closing summary and close the RfC. I specifically asked the closing admin to specify whether I needed to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox), and was told that there was no need to do that, and that the RfC applies to all articles. I believe that I did everything correctly.

On a related note, I just got the following notice on my talk page: I have never edited the Balkans page itself, so I assume that this concerns People's Socialist Republic of Albania. If so, could we please post a notice on that article's talk page? I generally limit myself to 1RR and to uncontroversial edits on articles with discretionary sanctions, but I was not aware that People's Socialist Republic of Albania was under DS.

As long as the can of worms is open and we are discussing the article content dispute, here is how I think religion on pages about countries should be approached. I think it should be treated the way we treat it at England#Religion. That page gives the reader a true understanding of the religion in that geographic area in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? I think not.

BTW, in case anyone missed the main point, Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

Also, for those who REALLY don't get the point, putting X after the "Religion =" in an infobox is claiming that X is a religion. Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Trying to get around it by saying "Religion = None (X)" does not change this. That was the clear consensus from the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the admins ruled, I'll have to comply. However, I think that "Religion:None (state atheism)" did make it clear. If the consensus is to remove it, so be it. But, since it's an important fact (for this and many other state atheist countries), what do you think about including an alternative parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist"? WBritten (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not what infoboxes are for. Anything that cannot be completely and uncontroversially summarized in a word or two should be in the article and not the infobox. I realize that you believe that anything important should be in the infobox, but this has come up again and again rewarding a wide number of parameters and the community has always decided that the standard for inclusion in an infobox is not importance, but rather lack of needed explanation and lack of subtle details. Things like birth dates, college degrees, maiden name, etc.

Getting back to the point, you have reported me at ANI. Please present evidence that I have misbehaved or withdraw your ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any controversy about this. The old infobox presented information in a neutral way. I don't think the consensus reached can't be applied here, since state atheism is important enough to be highlighted in the infobox. You misbehaved by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBritten (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I behaved entirely properly. I posted an RfC, waited for an admin to close it, and followed the instructions in the closing statements.

Regarding Future Perfect's accusation of edit warring, here is a timeline.

• April 2007 Article created with "religion = declared atheist state" in the infobox.
• December 2012 changed to "religion = None (State atheism)"
• 04:25, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon removes the religion entry.
• 05:16, 02 June 2015 124.148.222.41 reverts 1RR
• 09:14, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts 1RR
• 10:17, 02 June 2015 WBritten reverts 1RR
• 17:56, 09 June 2015 RfC closed with closing summary saying it applies to all articles.
• 09:45, 10 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC 1RR
• 22:10, 10 June 2015 WBritten reverts 1RR
• 22:16, 10 June 2015 WBritten posts to Guy Macon's talk page, Guy Macon noves it to article talk.
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon replies on article talk page
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC 2RR
• 09:41, 11 June 2015 WBritten replies on article talk page
• 09:51, 11 June 2015 WBritten posts to ANI

So, nobody went past 2RR. As I mentioned before, if there had been a talk page notice letting me know I was editing an article under discretionary sanctions, I would have limited myself to 1RR as is my standard practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd let the DS thing slide but Guy Macon is overgeneralizing the RFC in my opinion. The comparison with England isn't valid since nobody really cares that Anglicanism is England's official religion (people there practice whatever religion they like), unlike PSR Albania that had bloody crackdowns. As JzG put it in the RFC close, there's a difference between someone who self-identified as atheist in an interview, and someone like Richard Dawkins. And the RFC clearly says "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." So it's better to have a specific discussion on the PSR Albania talk page about what to put in that article's infobox. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: " And the RFC clearly says 'This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures.' ", your selective quoting is deceptive. In the praragrahps that you had to have read before reaching the part you selectively quoted, the same RfC clearly says...

"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful."

and the closing administrator responded by answering that question with...

"In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc."

...and...

"Religion=none would almost certainly be wrong, in any article on Misplaced Pages."

I have now exhausted my supply of WP:AGF on this issue. I could accept the first two or three times as honest errors, but from here on, if anyone claims that they read the RfC and that it claims to only apply to individuals, I am going to assume that the "mistake" is deliberate and that the person making the "mistake" made it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but I take that part of the close to be advisory at most, since it addressed an issue that explicitly wasn't part of the RFC. Just use some common sense instead of campaigning for encyclopedia-wide diktats about anything. Does JzG want to comment? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you said in the "Note to closing admin" on 6 May 2015 " The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful" , which to me indicated that it was undetermined about entities other than BLP subjects, but you personally thought there were grounds for omitting it, and that another RfC would be needed to settle the matter: I'm not going to get involved further here, but I think the only way of settling this would be the other rfc you suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is just about PSR Albania, then the best way to settle that is on the article talk page, maybe with an RFC there. Reasonable uninvolved analysis on a specific article page is almost always more convincing than running an abstract RFC and scraping its limited quantum of consensus across 1000's of articles whose issues can vary considerably. (Note: I'm about to take off and might not be able to edit again til next week). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me a policy-based reason to do otherwise, I intend to continue removing the religion parameter from all articles where the region is listed as "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof, including our article on the PSR of Albania.

If someone posts an RfC asking about the religion entry on the infobox on the PSR of Albania article or asking about the religion entry on the infobox on articles about countries in general I will delay my removals pending the outcome of that RfC. I am not going to post such an RfC myself. I asked if I needed to do so and got my answer. Anyone who disagrees with that answer can take it up with the closing admin. Anyone who wants me to do other than what the closing instructions tell me to do can pound sand, because I refuse to do that.

And unless some admin wants to explain to me exactly how I allegedly misbehaved in this matter so we can discuss the specifics, this should be closed as a content dispute (a content dispute that was settled by RfC, to be specific) and thus inappropriate for ANI. I did nothing wrong, and WBritten did nothing wrong. There is nothing for ANI to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to JzG, who is generally a highly competent admin, in this aspect of his closure he simply made a mistake. The RfC was not only initially posted as affecting only individual people, it remained exclusively focussed on them right to the end. You, Guy Macon, brought up the additional question of states and organizations only in the very final state of the RfC, when everybody else had had their say, and there were only a handful of additional comments and !votes trickling in between that date and the date of the closure, none of which (as far as I can see) addressed this issue. Therefore, there is no way this RfC could be reasonably claimed to have established consensus for this aspect of the issue – it simply wasn't discussed in it. I have no problem if you want to proceed on the default assumption that removal of the parameter from other articles will be consensual, but I strongly warn you against taking this closure as a license for edit-warring if you should encounter reasoned objections or local consensus on individual articles. Even a perfectly valid RfC consensus would not be a license for edit-warring; much less a dubious consensus such as this. You did edit-war on the Albania page (4 removals in the space of a few days is edit-warring whichever way you look at it, no matter if you did or didn't cross the bright line of 3RR); don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You think that reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once is ... edit warring? And you are warning me not to do it again? I would like to request a second opinion from another, uninvolved administrator regarding whether I am guilty of edit warring.

I also find this to be troubling. So far I have had five people make the same mistake, and (other than you), they all thanked me and accepted the consensus once I pointed out that they had missed the first paragraph of the closing summary. The Misplaced Pages community has accepted my removal of the religion parameter from over 600 articles (exactly one is still being discussed). It is time that you do so as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you that it is fairly common practice for individuals who post giant font bold ALL caps messages with exclamation marks at the top of an RFC to be reverted. Do you really need bold, large font, all caps and exclamation marks? Do you think it makes it easier for people to read? Chillum 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea was to make it easier to notice. It was intended for readers like the five people who somehow didn't manage to notice the very first paragraph of the closing summary but instead read the title and stopped reading there. That being said, the fact that a single person has expressed the opinion that they don't like the formatting is reason enough for me not to do it that way.

So, does anyone here support the accusation of edit warring for me reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once? I take administrative warnings very seriously, but as far as I can tell the only possible way to obey this one is to never exceed 1RR and/or to never post an RfC and then act on the consensus from that RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about edit warring per se, but this begins to look like battleground editing and an effort to right great wrongs. I agree with FPAS that you are overstating the scope of that RFC. The part of the close you're trying to rely on simply is not backed by the comments of the RFC partipants, since the RFC itself explicitly excluded every type of article except BLP's. JzG basically added his own view about other types of articles, but I think he is wise enough to know that he can't impute that view to the other commenters. It's reasonable to make a BOLD edit to PSR Albania completely independently of the RFC, but as FutPerf says, you can't use the RFC to backstop an edit war over it. It's subject to reversion followed by discussion on the talk page just like any other content edit. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there was no edit warring on either side. That was and is a false accusation. As long as fut.perf. does not attempt to act on that warning, I am not going to "try to right great wrongs" and insist that another admin tell him that (thus causing unneeded friction between them), but you won't see any other admin supporting the accusation any time soon, because the facts don't support it.

Secondly, what you are suggesting above is that editors analyze RfC closing statements by uninvolved administrators, and if they decide that the admin was wrong, act as if the content dispute was not, in fact, settled by RfC. That may seem like an inviting prospect when you are on the losing end of the RfC and it is you who thinks the admin got it wrong, but I assure you that you would not be happy if both sides were allowed to do that any time there is an intractable content dispute. When an uninvolved administrator closes an RfC and writes up a closing summary, that is, by definition, the consensus. And local consensus on an article talk page cannot override the global consensus of the RfC. See WP:LOCALCON.

Of course admins do make mistakes, and you do have options if you think the admin made a mistake in this case. They are:

• Post a more specific RfC on the same page as the existing RfC that covers the exact situation that you are claiming the closer was wrong about the first RfC covering. More specific RfCs override more general RfCs. I would note that the closing admin himself suggested this as an option for you in his closing summary.
• Ask the closing admin to reconsider on his talk page. This is a required first step if you are claiming that the admin made a mistake in an AN or ANI filing.
• Post a request at WP:AN asking if any other uninvolved admin is willing to vacate the closing and replace the closing summary.
• File a case with the arbitration committee.

What you are not allowed to do is to behave as if there isn't a global consensus or that the consensus is anything other than what the closing admin, right or wrong, said it is. Sometimes Misplaced Pages has content disputes. I regularly mediate them in my role as a WP:DRN volunteer mediator. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached on the talk page, at DRN, or anywhere else. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is the RfC. We don't want the disputants arguing about what the result of a hundred or so RfC comments mean, so we ask experienced and uninvolved administrators to close the RfC and make a determination as to where it applies. In this case the determination was that it applies to "all articles". You need to either accept that or dispute it using the steps outlined above.

TLDR: Sometimes Misplaced Pages has content disputes. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is an RfC closed by an uninvolved administrator. This settles the dispute. We do not continue arguing about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was pretty clear for natural persons, and equally so for non-natural persons such as companies, according to examples provided. It did not address states. If I may quote:

In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case.

I can't think of a way of clarifying this. Anyone taking that as explicit support for a change in respect of countries, is going well beyond the intent or the letter, it pretty obviously applies only to the examples actually discussed and would immediately be void if (a) someone did provide an obvious reason or (b) a second RfC was started. Either of those outcomes is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disturbing edits by user:Schaengel

Collapsed 2 images. Which photo is better is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talk page, not here. BMK (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Schaengel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declares articels of Koblenz to his property and reverts my replacement of this high quality image File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg of Basilica of St. Castor and supplyes instead this two images of him (File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_01.jpg and File:Koblenz_im_Buga-Jahr_2011_-_Basilika_St_Kastor_02.jpg. This is not only an content dispute because Schaengel refuses a factual discussion and reverts me in all wikpedia projects. Very poor behaviour and at expense of the article quality of the illustration. On German wikipedia a admin has already rebuked his notorious editwar behaviour. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• You need to provide more diffs of him reverting you here, or other behavior. The images you provided could be argued either way. As for other Misplaced Pages projects, that is outside the scope of the English Misplaced Pages, we have no authority there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The diffs you can see if you look at his contribs, but ok. He reverted me in four articels , , , , some also twice. The reverts in other WP projects are not to punish here but show the range of his behaviour. Schaengel is not willing to argue, either in the German Misplaced Pages (home) nor here. So this is a real problem. The replaced images are from many objective standards very high level compared to his images, he will notoriously save for "his" Koblenz articels. --84.174.225.45 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC) // forgotten to login --– Wladyslaw (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, we don't care about the German Misplaced Pages. Most of us don't speak enough German to use the evidence anyway as we would have no context. As for the reverts here, you both have been reverting each other. I haven't seen where you have once approached them on the talk page of the articles. Before coming to ANI, you have to attempt a dialog with them. ANI is the last resort, not the first. At this stage, it is nothing but a content dispute, verging on an edit war in some areas, and no one has tried to discuss yet. We do NOT settle content disputes at ANI, ever. Go discuss first. WP:BRD is a good read for both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, that's a little parochial, and we do have some people here who know some German. While it is true that behavior on dewiki is beyond our authority, if there have been sanctions against him there, that is legitimate for this wiki to use as corroborating evidence of a pattern of behavior. Wladyslaw, it would help if you added a link to any formal sanctions or rebuke on dewiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly is the problem? The diff links of his revert took place here at en.wiki not at de.wiki. He is not willing to argue with me. So if you don't think that his behaviour at en.wiki is harmfull I am very surprised. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, Wladyslaw, you do have to try to engage him on the talk page(s) explicitly first, as Dennis has said. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look here (do not editwar, use the discussion page, Schaengel reverts all over all wikipedia projects to save "his" images, next revert and I will tell this to an admin), I already pleased him to use the talk page, without positive result. He reverted me again. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, Wladyslaw is saying "he's causing problems here , just like he did at de:wp". He doesn't seem to be asking for sanctions based on Schaengel's actions at de:wp. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs that Wladyslaw links, together with their page histories, I agree with his assessment of the situation. It looks like Schaengel's acting to protect his image from getting replaced — other than reverting people who remove his image, he's not made any edits since May, so I'm confident that he's not explained himself anywhere or attempted to discuss on a talk page. Moreover, he's reverted an IP address, too; while it may be Wladyslaw's, judging by the similarity between it and Wladyslaw's 84.174.225.45 up above (also note that Wladyslaw and Taxiarchos are the same person), it's clearly not a case of him stalking Wladyslaw: he's simply acting to protect his image. Finally, Wladyslaw stopped after one reversion on most of these pages, and Schaengel's version is the current one on all of these pages (except Koblenz, where another user restored Wladyslaw's), so I think we ought not consider him guilty of edit-warring. I've left Schaengel a final warning for ownership on top of the warning for edit-warring that someone else already left for him. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me write more carefully, Wladyslaw. Nobody here is saying that what the other user was doing here was right. One question here is: are you responding in the right way? Or is what you're doing just as much a problem?

• You cannot rely on edit summaries to ask the other user to talk to you. You have to go to the appropriate talk page and open a discussion there. And you have to notify the other user of the discussion, either with a ping, or preferably with a note on the user's talk page. Until you do those things, we can't help you here.
• Dennis suggests that you read WP:BRD for further information about that. I agree.

If you've done all that, you can come back for help.

• What Dennis was saying is that we do not impose sanctions on users because they also behave badly on other wikis.
• My response to him was that behavior on other wikis can be used as a factor when we impose sanctions on users because they behave badly here.

But we can't do any of this until you go through the steps I said above. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, please note that Wladyslaw already tried to engage at Commons: see the page history of Commons:User talk:Schaengel. Schaengel's response? Simple reversion. This is not someone who's interested in collegial editing: it's someone who doesn't want his image to be removed, to the extent that he'll oppose the other guy's featured picture nomination when everyone else is supporting it. When someone's doing the same thing across nine WMF wikis, and someone addresses it on one, there's no need to address it on any of the other eight. When you edit-war on nine wikis, and you reject discussion when asked, it's clear that you'll not stop unless you get your way or unless you're forced to stop. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait a few days if Schaengel is writing s.th. at the talk pages. Weegeerunner already reverted him in one of the four articels. If he didn't bring s.th. reasonable against my image proposal I will replace the images as I already did today. If Schaengel will revert me again I'll tell you again and than it's clearly again what is clearly (for me) already now, that Schaengel only will force his "ownership" on the articles. Thank to all for your help. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nyttend. I don't actually disagree with you, but on a technical issue Dennis is right. We technically can't act here because of behavior there, if you will. Once Wladyslaw makes a single, by-the-book effort to engage Schaengel here, it becomes much easier to add in Schaengel's behavior everywhere else to throw the book at him. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with your first statement, but not with your conclusions. The parties have already interacted in a public manner; requiring interaction here before sanctions would be rather excessively bureaucratic when the guy's pretty obviously breaking our policies and demonstrated his disinterest in collegial editing. Schaengel has been edit-warring and demonstrating page ownership here, to an extent that ignoring his current warnings will mean that he deserves to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're allowed to make that call. I'm not. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And, let me add, then we could probably go to the stewards and establish a cross-wiki sanction, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can´t believe what I read here. The wikipedia really doesn´t need any autors anymore. I will consider to leave, I can´t be part of such less esteem in my article work. --Schaengel (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstanding. My intention wasn't that Schaengel will be punished. I guess the words of many users here had stopped his notorious reverts. Maybe he had a bad day and I will not overrate his behaviour. My proposal to Schaengel: switch off the PC, I will not revert you and not edit in "your" articels. Take a break and return in a few days and will find a solution. But this assumes that your are willing. I hope you understand this and will not be miffed. Maybe we can close this for today. This should be uptaken as assistance and good will. It's up to you if you revert this and leave or take part in a matter that is ruled and suggested to have a good basic. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it cant get any worser, then there is the last kick off ... please stop talking so much sh... --Schaengel (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it was my last but serious try. If collaborative work and discourse is "shit" in your feeling I have n.th. to say anymore here. Really breathtaking crude aspects of you. If you are not willing to discuss you have to leave. In this case your work and participation here can only be due to a big misunderstanding of the project scopes. --– Wladyslaw (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I know that I am right. Its a big show what are you doing here at all channels, and most of the time you are talking with yourself. The german wikipedia looses so much authors ... now you know why. --Schaengel (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't talk to myself, I make documentation of the reasons for the image replacement I did. And you inculpated my to be not polite to you because I did't talk to you. Now I am talking and try to make reasonable why I repleced the pictures and all this is also not right to you. Did you really know what you want? The fading of authors is a complex problem that has multiple reasons. It has so multiple reasons that one person by oneself can't be responsible for that. Not even you that exhibit a very dubious behaviour. – Wladyslaw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No you tend your ego. Thats why your are playing this big show, thats why you need an award for every of your photos. This is so embarrassing. --Schaengel (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A good question is also: why didn't you revert Weegeerunner but only me and why did you revert me all over all wikipedia projects? This I call a big show. Now your true face come out and the level of your input here is falling down to personal insults. I think the time is good now to make come true what you have already announced. Goodbye. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this: no, I don't need an award of all my images. The fact is: I have donated far more then 6000 images and many articles. Only a small quote of the images may receive an award. There are photographers that are much more better than I am and they have many more awards I ever will receive. But out of your words it seems that there is speaking enviousness and distrust. Do you really need to act so? This is really embarrassing. – Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: At this point you certainly have my support for whatever sanctions you deem appropriate to impose. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you haven't discussed the images on the talk page, you've only talked passed each other and about each other here. Fortunately, Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw has started a discussion at Talk:Basilica of St. Castor, and I would strongly suggest Schaengel join in that discussion, as the issue appears to be a legitimate one. Not doing so and going back and starting to revert again and again....THEN we have the basis for edit warring / disruptive behavior, and at that point, valid authority to take action to prevent disruption. Schaengel, I just started a new essay due to another editor, but it would equally apply to you: WP:ENGAGE. I think it might be worth a read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone may be impersonating me

User Michael thomas 89 has contacted me about being approached off wiki be someone claiming to be me. He said that the person had claimed to have checked their declined draft article Draft:New_Net_Technologies and directed him to my user page “I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sarahj2107 ” . The person then offered to rewrite the article and get it approved.

Michael thomas 89 claims that they took the person up on their initial offer and the page was published. The person then demanded $300, said they had requested the page be deleted and it would only be reinstated when the money was paid. He didn’t think that was right so he then contacted me on my talk page and forwarded some more details to me via email.

New Net Technologies Ltd was created by blocked user user:Coralbatch on 22 May 2015 (the same day as the first email sent to Michael thomas 89), only edit by them and then deleted on 10 June by Guerillero under WP:CSD#G5.

I would really appreciate some help in dealing with this. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if he was sent a copy of the article to be approved prior to its use? If so, I would like that emailed to me for further evaluation. It may be possible to tie this in with certain paid editor groups.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, two other sock accounts are in play and should be checkusered against the already blocked editor as well as the one who is conversing with you.

• (draft history) by Neilmacleod (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (revision history) by ECooke1804 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Michael thomas 89 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (already blocked by Guerillero) Coralbatch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This may be related to an existing SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute a criminal offense? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this scam has been pulled before (possibly impersonating other admins as well) and just hadn't come to light because the "customers" hadn't followed it up or the articles they paid for did get created and have so far slipped under the radar. It's quite worrying. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: He was sent a link to User:Coralbatch/sandbox asking him to review the draft and let them know when he is ready for it to be published, along with payment details. I will email you what was sent to me. He is also saying that Neilmacleod is just a customer who created a page when they found there wasn't already one, and Emmacooke is someone from the companies PR department. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been pulled a few times before theres as OTRS ticket about one we dealt with earlier in the week that resulted in a CU block of an account. I wasnt privvy to full details on the reasons behind the block unfortunatley. The blocking admin may be able to endulge other CU's though. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm I have handled at least two of these through OTRS. The modus operandi I am aware of involves creating an article in mainspace, then contacting a representative of the company and demanding money. If not paid the original author requests deletion via G7. I raised the issue at AN but it never came to anything unfortunately, because it would have required to go fishing with CU at the very least (or there simply wasn't any interest). §FreeRangeFrog 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See this. §FreeRangeFrog 17:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm having seen this in relation to another user, though I can't currently find the email I sent them about it. It was very similar (I'll help with your article for a fee, I am this user), and received by a user who came onto IRC rather angered by it. I'll post again if I remember/find out who they were impersonating. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've remembered a little more about the case I saw and it was slightly different from this one. A user was contacted about an AfC draft they had started from someone claiming to be an administrator who could accept the article for them for a fee. The user they were impersonating hadn't edited in a while and was neither an admin nor an AfC reviewer. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That matches the case I dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen what I suspect to have been similar, --see . I have heard rumors of many others. I'm not aware of any case where an actual administrator has been doing anything of the sort. (Arb com will of course as always be interested in any admin who does use admin powers to support any article they have written, paid or unpaid) I've alerted WP:LEGAL about this discussion. At the very least, the WMF ought to make public statement that a/nobody has the authority to promise that a WP article will be accepted or will be given a particular quality designation. and b/ that anyone offering to write WP articles without giving full disclosure of that fact on Misplaced Pages will be in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access and interest in this, #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121 should be interesting reading. I know of at least one company in the UK possibly involved with these. §FreeRangeFrog 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree wih DGG; this kind of thing needs to be escalated as it could be happening on a global scale. I would like to assume that nobody would fall for it, but they must have had a few bites if they keep trying. I don't believe these are "legitimate" paid editors, but are impersonating people because they're scammers out to get credit card numbers. Is there a way to put any kind of overall notice warning people of this? —Мандичка 😜 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DGG was right to notify legal, and they do need to get involved. It's not only an organizational issue, it's also a personal issue which can have unpleasant consequences for the editors who are being impersonated. This impersonation may have affected other editors as well, but it just hasn't come to light. I frankly doubt it's a scam to get credit card information, though. Writing Misplaced Pages drafts on boring businesses, is not terribly efficient way of doing that. But for people desperate for a bit of cash, it's a fairly quick $300, if you get someone to take the bait. Sarahj2107, did your correspondent say what method of payment the impersonator had asked for? Have any of the other OTRS tickets specified the payment method? Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Voceditenore. Payment details have been sent up the ladder although I'm not sure if they are in an OTRS ticket or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I dug out the IRC logs from the day the user came in regarding this and have some more details regarding the case I saw. The user had a draft that they had been working on for some time and were contacted by someone claiming to be a particular Misplaced Pages user. They claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" who was a "member of Article for Creation review department" - the person they were impersonating had only autopatrolled and reviewer rights and had not reviewed any AfCs. They were told that they "will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone and get it approved" and "it will cost you $150 pay me when page approved and published." Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning notices?

• Maybe we could use a template for userpages. Something roughly along the lines of "This user is NOT a paid editor and does not contact or solicit anyone for paid work on Misplaced Pages. If someone has contacted you claiming to be me, please use this email link or post on my talk page so that we may clarify. Thank you."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• User page notices can help on the personal level. But we need notices at the organizational level too. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is the ideal location for scammers to find potential clients. About 75% of the help requests there concern rejected "advertorial" drafts about non-notable companies, their founders, their products, etc. One person actually wrote "I hired a gentleman from India on fiver to create this page and I fear that he has abandoned me... Please help." The draft was indeed created by an IP that traces to India. The IP's first edit produced a remarkably "finished product". It might help to have prominent warning notices on that page as well as on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation, Misplaced Pages:Article wizard, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - also think we need a general template message. It reminds me of the old days in the 90s when AOL had all these scams, and they had to put up messages reminding people that no AOL employee is going to contact them and ask to confirm billing information. I also think, even if these people were not all scammers, they're certainly not legitimate businesses. —Мандичка 😜 09:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Results

Here are the results of a fresh checkuser:

• Coralbatch (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Neil and Michael. Please note that this account appears to be editing through a botnet so checkuser is worthless here. (CU shows that they are connected to Faulkerfod (talk · contribs), who started the page, as well as Cameronag (talk · contribs), JennaelkinsTA (talk · contribs), Jacelegan (talk · contribs).)
• Neilmacleod (talk · contribs) and Michael thomas 89 (talk · contribs) are  Possible but I think they are innocent people who are on the same network.
• ECooke1804 is too old to CU

This behavior truly concerns me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks. My guess is this might be just the tip of a WikiPR-like iceberg, and I think there's more than one group of people or companies involved. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil and Michael blocked indef as spam/advertising accounts by JzG.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I received an email from Michael questioning his block. Since he did not receive a block notice, he had no recourse for filing an appeal so I have left a note on his talk page. Although he hasn't filed that request yet, I will state that blocking a whistleblower isn't necessarily in WP's best interests.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's not a whistleblower, he's a person frustrated in trying to pay for an article on his company. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, JzG, but an insta-black for anyone who complains will hardly encourage others to come forward and might make it harder for WP get to the bottom of this or at least learn its true extent. If others in this situation are blocked, they need a clearly worded block notice and an explanation of their options for further communication concerning the problem. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But he was approached by what he thought was an admin so he thought that he was complying with WP in his actions. See this. He brought it forward after smelling a rat and did the right thing. He has cooperated by sending information via email for the investigation. Sarah and Handpolk have been helping guide him in the right direction and he has only posted material on his talk page to supply sources. It isn't as if he is trying to hide his conflict of interest. I'm not sure that it would hurt if he is allowed to work on the draft.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll chip in that Michael should probably not be blocked, or at the least should have a clear way forward handed to him on a way to get unblocked. It seems likely he felt he was following the rules and got conned by someone. I would like to get a clear statement that he now has read and understood WP:COI (which is not the easiest thing to understand I'll grant you). Hobit (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Michael thomas 89 per Hobit. He seems like he was primarily ignorant about how articles are created and fell for a scam and now is being blackmailed. Definitely doesn't warrant an indefinite block. Liz 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now unblocked User:Michael thomas 89 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Extortion and identity theft

Is anyone following up the extortion (holding articles to "ransom") and identity theft issues, to report them to relevant law enforcement authorities? These are real world crimes, not merely Wiki-offences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia's legal department has already been alerted by DGG. If anyone has the ability to do that with any authority, they do, but don't expect them to be public about it until something is set. —Jeremy v^_^v 09:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress's external canvassing

Regulars at this page will probably remember that Middayexpress recently received a topic ban from all Somalia-related articles. During the course of the discussion about the incidents that led up to this, Middayexpress announced their retirement from the site and also stated that they intended to attempt to publicise the dispute in the media. I've been keeping an eye out for any sign of this publicity, and just discovered this post, written by someone claiming to be Middayexpress, on SomaliNet Forums. The post mentions AcidSnow as a contact point for new members joining the site (I'm not suggesting that AcidSnow has done anything wrong here, and indeed he/she has been pretty much inactive since Middayexpress quit). I found this worrying: "Another advantage is that one gets to see the actual inner workings of Misplaced Pages. That includes identifying any vandals or detractors, which one can then do something about". It sounds like Middayexpress might be planning to engage in WP:OUTING, unless I misunderstand the comment. Note that "ajnabi" means "foreigner". Further down in the thread, Materialscientist and Buckshot06 are mentioned by other posters. I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this, but I'm flagging it so that administrators are aware. It sounds like there might be more to come, however: "On the point of wiki detractors (including who they are and what they've attempted to do), there is a lot more I would like to write. But first I'd like to field any questions Somalinetters may have". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see that you reopened a discussion here. I have mentioned previously that Acidsnow and the other users are possibly friends at ANI. They all do not care for reliable sources. They edit articles by backing their own original research as clearly seen here . The ban should include acidsnow and it needs to be broadened to east african related articles. I already have the support of User Hadraa .

Here are some evidence of meat puppetry:

The users Acidsnow and Midday are found backing each other on various talk pages Talk:Walashma dynasty Talk:Harar Talk:Adal Sultanate

Midday backs Acidsnow here

Acidsnow asks Midday to check out the article on his 3rd revert here

Midday reverts inorder for acidsnow to avoid 3rr

The Walashma page has been targeted by a sock since Middays topic ban

Midday jumps in to defend Acidsnow on my ANI post

Another issue to note is Acidsnow keeps restoring original research into articles as seen here,

I have taken this to various noticeboards, Fringe, No original research etc to halt their behavior all to no avail. Most uninvolved users are reluctant to pitch in on the subjects at dispute, but its clear that the tag teaming has been successful in POVing articles. Zekenyan (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm in the middle of going through a long list of users to see if any edits sync up; depending on what I find, I may or may not take the results to WP:SPI. In the mean time though it shouldn't be too much of an issue, I placed a 1rr restriction for the pages under the umbrella of the topic ban precisely so that any attempt to coordinate off site would end up choked off early. Of particular note in that case it that it may make an investigation into any sock or meat puppets easier, since they would have to coordinate openly in order to get around the 1rr mandate. As far as off site material goes, in my opinion, what they say off site shouldn't automatically result in an onsite security rush. We have freedom of speech and expression, if Middayexpress wishes to exercise it then he is free to do so. Rather like Hiemdall, all we can do is watch and wait to see what will become of the action. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on Midday himself threatening to alert "horn of africans”. The current ban is not affective. I propose the current topic ban be amended to “east african related articles and include Acidsnow. Zekenyan (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to identify any puppetry, TomStar81. I agree that we can't and shouldn't rush to secure everything; we just need to keep an eye out for suspicious editing and any attacks on Materialscientist and Buckshot06, given what is said about them on the forum. I'm concerned about the apparent outing threats, but will keep an eye on the forum thread so that I know if and when it happens at least. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

just want to say that i agree with Zekenyan about acidsnow and after having a long experience with him and midday will stand for what Zekenyan says ,p.s good job in lining up all there conversation.Hadraa (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all an interesting chain of events Cordless Larry. Anyways, despite the baseless accusations presented by both Zekenyan and Hadraa (oddly enough, he himself was already proven to be a sock of the banned user Muktar allebbey by multiple users) I am in no form or way a sock puppet. This has already been disproven multiple times and to suggest it again is simply pathetic. AcidSnow (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not baseless when multiple users accuse you of meat puppetry. Shall I refer to the previous thread? Zekenyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only you and Hadraa whom belive so. In fact, Hadraa is a a sock himself, so that only leaves you. What "previous thread" are you refering to? AcidSnow (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have said you are following Middayexpress here Its abit too late to act all innocent and you continue to include original research into articles. Based on the evidence above im sure BrumEduResearch and Spumuq can agree. Zekenyan (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Multiple"? Haha, it was only bobrayner! More importantly, his reasons for this claim were simply baseless. He even refused to respond back to me when I called him out. Anyways, I have yet to added any original research so please stop claiming so as it's simply a WP:PERSONALATTACK. AcidSnow (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, behave yourselves. Remember, we are all innocent of any accusations until proven guilty. That AcidSnow (talk · contribs) seems to share a similar mindset with Middayexpress (talk · contribs) only proves that two people who edit on this site happen to share a similar point of view on the matter, not that one user has multiple accounts to prove his point. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we are obliged to assume good faith. Moderation, gentlemen, in all things. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

While User:AcidSnow and I disagree on a number of content issues, I feel compelled to say that I've seen no evidence of him being a sock of Middayexpress, and indeed he's one of the more moderate Somali users here, in reasonably good standing. I do not believe that the attacks above on him are justified by any WP rules, and I believe they constitute WP:Personal Attacks. I would back User:TomStar81's views about the importance of moderation (fanaticism here only leads to edit-warring, bans, and blocks). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, and TomStar81. This discussion has quickly lost it's orginal purpose and has become a slander page against me. AcidSnow (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

first of all stop accusing me of someone that i am not ,second of all i used my real email to prove a point that is a Chinese document was a forgy so for the last time i have to be notifit about the case and stop acussing some one of what he is not .Hadraa (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

here are the copies of my email that i have but on line and like you can see i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contain sensitive staff , and you can use any sort of photoshop to write in any name or ip address you want its easy so don't be fooled and the hollow argument was a bout a fraud and forged that was used and i pointed out what it was you can see on again what is so easy like to write a person's name on a blank place in a letter is so easy icj 1 icj 2 like you can see ,and again i am not muktar like they accuse me of and i am tired of saying this again and again thanks

to show you what i meant here is a copy of the same email with the name of RIP (1955-2011) has the receiver of the email as stevejobs@hotmail.com,example of name fraud

so you see its easy to fill the blank with any name like muktar alebey or AcidSnow or any name you want.and stop your personal attacks against me and when did i ever say you are a sock of middy. again i took out the ip address and name for that is private and contains sensitive staff .Hadraa (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please keep this on topic? I'm not sure what this e-mail business is about, but I started this thread to highlight Middayexpress's comments on an external forum. If anyone has firm evidence that AcidSnow is a puppet for Middayexpress, then they should present it, but I am in agreement with Buckshot06 that although they may share a POV, that's as far as it goes. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:State_of_Somaliland#Email_from_ICJ

Institute of Financial Accountants

Justgivethetruth (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA contributing only to the page Institute of Financial Accountants, and keeps adding unsourced claims of equivalence with British qualified accountants e.g. , and does not use the talk pages despite being requested to observe WP:BRD. He was apparently also using IP socks so I activated pending changes. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Judging by the conversation that has since been started on your talk page, well, JGTT's declaration of " not even started to get the hang of yet" seems pretty accurate. It just sounds like a new user who needs to be adopted, is all. Erpert 00:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering JGTT only joined last year and has a (rather massive) 31 edits, I'd say there is plenty of space for gentle nudging towards the WP:RS and WP:V policies, not ANI. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict-POV pushing by IPs. IPs pinging me unnecessarily and AHLM13 being made a scapegoat.

User:39.47.50.14 is tagging me with nonsense facebook request(giving me red notifications) and Kautilya3 constantly with fake accusations.

Kautilya3 disagrees with my edits most of the times1, 2. But the IP User thinks we are POV pushing along Human3015. The user previously edited Kashmir conflict with IP 39.47.121.0 . 115.186.146.225 has joined along with other users for POV pushing in Kashmir conflict. I want to stay away from that article talk page from now and that IP shouldn't ping me, mention me again in that discussion.

Whenever someone sees a suspicious sock account with anti-Indian sentiments, they are tagged as suspected socks of AHLM13.

The IP User 39.47.50.14 mentioned about this discussion which included Pakistan Commando Force. Maybe he was trying to frame Mar4d. Blocked editors come back with IP socks.Cosmic  Emperor  09:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Administrator Please check me for all these allegations if i am guilty please punish me but also investigate CosmicEmperor Human3015 and Kautilya3 for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I say sorry if I hurt someone but i think i have not done so; please see in detail discussion on election 2014 here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kashmir_conflict. Please also guide me how can i refer to arbitration committee because they have protected the page and converging to deny consensus. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again baseless accusation from this IP User. Kautilya3 is the one who gave me this warning. Kautilya3 always tries to be neutral. I shouldn't have commented on Nangparvat socks.Cosmic  Emperor  10:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IPs 39.47.153.210 (talk · contribs), 39.47.121.0 (talk · contribs) and 115.186.146.225 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserted a current news item into the lede of Kashmir conflict, and they also recruited Faizan (talk · contribs) into their project: , , , , , , , . The IP's came over to the talk page only after the article got put under semi-protection by NeilN. Another IP 39.47.121.0 then made an argument which I conceded and incorporated the news item at the level appropriate for the lede. There the matter should have ended. However, some combination of these IPs and yet another 39.47.50.14 (talk · contribs) have been arguing for their preferred version of the text, which essentially seems to mean that all mention of India should be eliminated and all mention of Pakistan should be glorified. At the same time, they have been casting aspersions on all the editors who reverted their edits. No great harm has yet been done. But it is likely that the IPs will edit war again once the semi-protection lifts and things might get acrimonious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All the IPs are from the same city.

Faizan was brought like this:

IP request on Faizan's talkpage

Faizan joins.

Ip users involved in Kashmir Conflict gives names for facebook then other Ip mentions the name on talk page.

According to my view the statements can be added to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 not Kashmir conflict.Cosmic  Emperor  11:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All these editors should be using the dispute resolution noticeboard where they will be forced to focus on content and not each other. --NeilN 13:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did! I added the statement to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. I did not participate in the edit-war, and instead started the thread for discussion at the article's talk. The text was bowdlerized by Kautaliya, and it's inclusion depends upon the consensus at the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose spamming accounts

Several times a day over the past few weeks, a new user account is set up, and makes a single edit, adding a spam link to an unrelated article. The only obvious connection is that the edit summary is always the same: "Added informative link". Examples: ], ], ], ] - any suggestions as to how these edits can be traced and dealt with? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. Revert and block the offending account as a first step. (There's no need for escalating warnings or short initial blocks for editors whose first edit is a promotional link; such steps just waste the time of constructive editors.)
2. If particular websites are being repeatedly spammed, have them added to the spam blacklist.
3. If particular articles are regular targets for spam, consider semi-protecting them.
4. If the frequency of this type of spam seems high (or you've identified reasons to believe a particular group of accounts are linked), consider asking a CheckUser to look into it to see if there's a blockable underlying IP range (or open proxy) responsible.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I second taking this to SPI -- the similar usernames, edit summaries and behaviour should be enough to get a checkuser. MER-C 13:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesm.martinez21 with checkuser requested. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter which catches the edit summary could also be helpful? Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• These are domains of no conceivable utility to the project, spammed by sockpuppets, so I have blacklisted them. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If we put an edit filter for the edit summary, they will use a new edit summary for future links, it is not a long term solution Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a reason the edit filter is hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More accounts

Sorry to reopen this thread, but using Special:Linksearch on the links spammed by the previously blocked socks, I have found another two dozen accounts. They follow the same behavior, have similar names, spammed the same links, and used the same edit summary. I suspect there are still more. I have reopened the SPI as well. More accounts may need to be blocked and more links may need to be blacklisted. Deli nk (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be quite widespread, I've created an edit filter to detect these editors. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blacklisted another 41 domains added by this new batch of socks and cleaned the domains... but found another batch of socks. MER-C 03:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the new socks are taken to WP:SPI, the updated name for the casefile page is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb for reference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at the SPI, it looks like this has ballooned into an incident involving over one hundred accounts spamming dozens of links. This would suggest the involvement of a commercial organization. Is there any way of identifying the organization (without outing individuals) responsible for this? Deli nk (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Connect the dots. User:Boistonpublic used the same distinctive edit summary but was the only account to create a user page, so it is special. What was the link it inserted? www.areyouonpage1.com, which is apparently an SEO company. That site is registered to Paul C Leary of Westford, MA. The domains that are being spammed are probably all registered through a proxy registration service, but I would guess that most or all of them belong to the same person. This isn't a crisis, it's just another small-time spammer getting ambitious. Corpesawoke (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Even more accounts

The edit filter caught more accounts over the past couple of days. Will add them to the SPI, can someone with more knowledge of how the blacklist works blacklist the URLs that aren't already there? Sam Walton (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Spamming is still continuing, but perhaps at a lower frequency: ], ], ], ]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've improved the edit filter to catch the edits that it was previously missing, based on the examples linked here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have blacklisted two additional domains from the accounts listed at the SPI. MER-C 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can a checkuser determine whether it is possible or appropriate to rangeblock underlying IPs? Deli nk (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

3 x IPs from Different Locations Editing Same Articles with the Same kind of Info

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
78.146.41.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The above IPs have been engaged in editing a certain articles only as can be seen in their contributions since the past 48-72 hours. Surprisingly, they are from different locations but they have synchronized their editing habits and edit/add/undo exactly the same info to the same articles. They have been talked with at the respective talk pages and explained that their actions are against Wiki polices by leaving comments during reverts, however they have failed to pay any heed. Instead, few senior editors have come to their rescue indicating socking. PakSol  13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So?! If different people disagree with you on the same point, it dosen't make them sockpuppets or violators of any policy. I have no clue as to who those other IPs are. You're the one who is repeatedly violating standards of neutrality and historical accuracy by misrepresenting sources. You're user ID suggests you are associated with the Pakistani military. Then your POV-pushes in 1971 articles have a serious conflict of interest.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, yes, different people can always agree on the same point, but the way three of you have been synchronizing your efforts and have ganged up on me to commit reverts thus leading to 3RR warning. It is indeed surprising that all three of you instead of reverting the changes that have been reverted by other editors add in exactly the same sources and the words that the other IP have added. Coincidence? My user ID suggests nothing, this again shows that you have a habit of misinterpreting things to your own favour, nothing else. PakSol  15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you're pushing an outrageously biased and controversial POV not supported by any credibility, it's only but natural that people will try to stop you.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) PakSol, which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be Balochistan, Pakistan. Blackmane (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim and Indian foeticide article

92slim (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive edits to an artice he/she has proposed for deletion, Female foeticide in India. User wants article deleted because of POV pushing over abortion.. After AfD discussion, I fixed the lede so it was more clear that all abortion is not female feticide (). However, 92slim continues to change the lede to his POV to get the article deleted: "Female foeticide in India is the act of killing a female fetus outside of the legal channels of abortion, for assumed cultural reasons." This is UNSOURCED and completely factually incorrect; female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion. I have warned 92slim multiple times and have now hit the 3RR on this. User is also trying to get Femicide in China deleted btw. —Мандичка 😜 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the deletion discussion with personal attacks and repeatedly vandalised my talk page. "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" No, it's not. Sorry, find a source to back this up, as it's requested. --92slim (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not vandalize your page - I put warnings on there. I also don't see how I personally attacked anyone. Yes, female feticide is possible legally: Woman finds out she's pregnant with a girl, woman has legal abortion. This meets definition of feticide (killing a fetus) and is why the 1994 law banning ultrasounds was put in place. If you want to argue that abortion is not feticide, take it somewhere else. Your attempts to get this article and the Chinese article deleted suggest a topic ban might be a good idea. —Мандичка 😜 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You did vandalise my talk page, because you blatantly ignored the deletion discussion and went towards pointing fingers. Feticide (a legal term) is not a type of abortion. This is not an eBay bidding. --92slim (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To try and end this back and forth about content before doing anything else, do either of you have reliable sources that support what you claim to be true? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here. --92slim (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech: The definition is pretty straight forward—92slim is trying to introduce a definition into this article that is not even at the feticide article—it's destruction or abortion of a fetus. See definition at MW dictionary, Oxford dictionary, medical definitions, law book, and in Law & Medicine book by Indian doctor. Adding information that feticide excludes abortion done within legal channels is WP:OR and in this case, POV-pushing. Btw, I feel I'm very neutral about this subject personally, and encountered this article only when user proposed for deletion. —Мандичка 😜 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR. The definitions you have included are medical . For the legal (and etymological one, provided this is the English Misplaced Pages): At the pages 1852-1853 of the article I provided, which you haven't taken the time to read obviously, it's stated that "Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion,and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty" Note another's and with exceptions for abortion. You're the one pushing blatant POV. --92slim (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are general, medical AND legal. The link you provided refers to Indiana's criminal code; it does not change the definition of feticide but says people who engage in legal abortion in the state of Indiana are not to prosecuted for feticide. By the way, I would suggest you try to change the definition at feticide and see how that goes! Good luck! —Мандичка 😜 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For example, Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion, and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty. seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide. It is also about the legal definition in the United States, whereas the article is about India. Wikimandia's sources seem to indicate that the definition they are supporting is more widely used, is there a reason a legal definition should be used over the seemingly more common one? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No, they're only medical: your "law book" says "medical"generic definition; the rest are the same. As explained above, the term has important legal distinctions from abortion. I suggest you stop reverting without proper reasons. It's written in English, not in Indian, so no it has nothing to do with India. @PhantomTech: "seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide" No, it doesn't. Another's pregnancy is not an abortion. --92slim (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When you terminate another's fetus, you are performing an abortion and the wording in the source seems to indicate that, without exclusion of legal abortions, those abortions would fall under feticide. Without having to agree on what Indiana's legal definition is, is there a reason why Indiana's legal definition should be used over what seems to be the common English definition in an article about India? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to intentional termination of another's pregnancy refers to abortion in as such that medical workers who perform abortions are excluded from prosecution under this statute. And it's not written in "Indian"? LOL. Which of the 7,000 languages in India is "Indian"? Are you aware English is the primary language of the Indian government? You may feel the term has "important legal distinctions" and you are entitled to your opinion; however, we apply WP:NPOV here. I have no problem if you want to put in the article on feticide that some feticide legislation allow exemptions for legal abortion, but that doesn't mean you can change the actual definition, nor is it justification for deleting the feticide in India article. —Мандичка 😜 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No comments on that rant. @PhantomTech: Have you read the source provided? In sum: feticide is both a legal and medical term. There is no "common English definition" as you said. There is a law on feticide in India from 1994, but equating the word feticide with abortion means that either abortion is a crime or feticide is abortion, neither are true nationwide in the United States at least. I don't understand why India is even mentioned here; this is not the Indian Misplaced Pages. Feticide is not a Hindi word. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the source, I've also read the many dictionary sources provided by Wikimandia which are where the "common English definition" comes from, most Misplaced Pages readers are not doctors or lawyers and are therefor likely to use the more common definition. If we are to use the legal definition, you should provide a source for India's legal definition and explain why it should be preferred, also keep in mind that it cannot be assumed that definitions in the United States have any influence on legal definitions in India. English, in "the English Misplaced Pages", refers to the language it is written in, not the scope of the content, and, as was pointed out, there are English speakers in India. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, English IS an official language of India. FYI PhantomTech, here is how the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, defines it: "Female foeticide or sex selective abortion is the elimination of the female foetus in the womb itself." 2006 Handbook on Pre- Conception & Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Rules with Amendments . I don't know how anyone can actually argue with that source. —Мандичка 😜 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus this Indian handbook conflates abortion and foeticide, as opposed to US law which makes a clear distinction. Great start; at last the discussion is over. Well, I will make a clause later in the Feticide article (notwithstanding Wikibandia's blanket reverts), as this is a diametrically contrary definition to US law. As you can see, there is no POV pushing; I am only arguing legal definitions (which do matter), not medical. --92slim (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not arguing any definitions but your own POV. A U.S. state's penal code is not relevant to an article on India, even if it was "diametrically contrary" which it isn't (it's pretty clear to the rest of us that it DOES refers to abortion as feticide). That you don't seem to understand/accept this reinforces my opinion that you would be more helpful editing articles where you can be more neutral. Look forward to you withdrawing the AfD. Many lulz over "Wikibandia." —Мандичка 😜 06:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I highly recommend you use the talk page of feticide before editing it. Based on what's happened here I expect there to be some resistance, if I'm wrong all it will do is delay the change a bit. If the content part of this dispute is complete, it's time to settle the editor issues you've both brought up. Unless either one of you feel no further action is needed against the other and would like to withdraw your complaints:

• 92slim claims Wikimandia has broken 3RR
• Wikimandia claims 92slim has engaged in disruptive editing, POV pushing and breaking 3RR

Can both User:92slim and User:Wikimandia confirm that those are the problems you each feel need to be dealt with, correct any mistakes I've made, or withdraw anything you want to withdraw? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Get a clue, you refused to discuss this issue (the legal definition) beforehand just to have some "lulz" and opted for ANI; I don't think I'm the one pushing POV here. Don't speak for others, thanks a bunch and enjoy your pro-life stance. Nothing to add here. --92slim (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's it. And 92slim has graciously withdrawn the AfD. @92slim: I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift. Obviously I was right to do an ANI, as you were incorrectly inserting unsourced text to support your POV, adding back in text that had been removed as challenged, in violation of policy, as it was your burden to gain consensus first before adding it back WP:CHALLENGE, and you had been warned twice at the AfD and twice on your talk page. And as I said, I'm not even pro-life! GG! Thanks for playing! —Мандичка 😜 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I inserted "unsourced text to support my POV"?????? Maybe you're the one who's challenging my faith in Misplaced Pages, troll. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I propose 92slim be topic banned or at least blocked for a short while for POV-pushing, uncollaborative activity, and blatant disrespect at AN/I and the nomination for deletion page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. I already had withdrawn the nomination so you can go away now. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to draw admin attention to this comment that 92slim just left on my talk page, again accusing me of pushing a "pro-life POV." I have already been on the record stating I am in no way "pro-life" but am being as neutral as possible while going by all reliable sources. That this is somehow construed as "pro-life" reinforces that topic ban suggestion. —Мандичка 😜 07:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should just think about your claims of "unsourced text to support POV", because they are unsourced. Btw I don't intend to edit your topic anymore, "pro-lifer". After the last conviction for feticide in Indiana last month (yeah, by the "prolifers"; all she did was to abort), I can safely say you have won the argument. Enjoy the rest. Oh yeah, just for the "lulz", she is an Indian woman from Indiana; sorry if I don't know what language she speaks. --92slim (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this sentence marks the first time a woman in the U.S. has been convicted and sentenced for attempting to end her own pregnancy. --92slim (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The infant was actually alive....outside her body. But alrighty then. Just stop POV-pushing and were square.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please just don't stalk me or my talk page again. This is all another excuse for anti-abortion measures at a state level. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, btw, there is zero proof the infant was alive. This wasn't confirmed; nice try though. --92slim (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. If all agree that that's a nuisance (e.g. if you want to improve it while it's at AfD), let me know and I'll unprotect, or if I'm not around ask at RfPP. Sarah (SV) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anything related to feticide or abortion for 92slim. If they continue to maintain their uncivil attitude toward Wikimandia, a temporary block or interaction ban may be necessary. Noting that 92slim has not yet confirmed they wish to continue to pursue action against Wikimandia. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue action, I already did pursue all the legalese that I could towards people who were uncivil to me in the first place. Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child, just to be pursued back at Misplaced Pages; I'm actually distressed. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Supporting an ethnically Indian woman...'" might be admirable, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the purpose is the lulz. Please, refrain from giving lectures. You know that this is a legal matter if you read it. --92slim (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment upset you, as that was not my purpose. But can I suggest that sarcasm is not helping your case? Mr Potto (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --92slim (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim's continued behavior seems to show they're unwilling or unable to remain civil, for these reasons I support a block, in addition to supporting a topic ban from feticide and abortion. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not the place for continuing the content argument, so I've search for and added a number of dictionary definitions to the article talk page, which I hope will be of some help. Mr Potto (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can an admin please remove the AfD template, as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator? Done Mr Potto (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Request action against 92slim - besides being generally obnoxious on my talk page, 92slim is harassing me at AfD: I guess I somehow support "jihad" and again with the pro-life accusations. —Мандичка 😜 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking the pages I nominated! You are editing in bad faith. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

???? I regularly contribute at AfD, as is evident by my history, and many people can attest. Nobody is "stalking" you and my comments on those AfDs were certainly not in bad faith. —Мандичка 😜 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I ignored your little blob about "your history and testament". Also, you are providing pro-life arguments ("it's gendercide, not femicide"; "feticide is abortion" etc) all the time after this topic was settled, essentially just to provoke, just so you know. --92slim (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was gendercide not femicide; I specifically said femicide was the correct term, and I did not say "feticide is abortion." I don't see how my suggestion was provoking, nor do I see how my comment on the redirect means I support "jihad." I'm beginning to think someone is a few Bradys shy of a Bunch. —Мандичка 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, the correct term. Right, but you prefer "gendercide" ; unsurprising. And yes, you did say "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" at your ANI post. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not say I "preferred" gendercide. I was responding to Hithladaeus's statement that femicide was a neologism and that gynocide would probably be the right term; thus I said femicide was correct, that the general term is gendercide and its subterms are femicide and androcide. As I clearly wrote. And anyone can see. And yes, I did say female feticide is possible by means of legal abortion, as is supported by multiple reliable sources, including the government of India. All us AfD jihadists are very particular in our demand for reliable sources. —Мандичка 😜 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You blatantly did as per above. Have fun with your "lulz" (per your vocab); come back when you have time to actually read the arguments for deletion, medical vs legal arguments, sources provided and the difference between legal systems. Until then, I can attest that you have contributed nothing to solving our differences on abortion vs feticide (which was the whole reason for this drama you have come up with yourself for your POV political reasons). --92slim (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would personally want you to be banned from interaction with me. You are by far the most obnoxious "user" I have met here, and that's saying something. A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion, a sentence justified with the "feticide". Good luck with your already meaningless life, I'm out of this. --92slim (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Words ending in -cide usually imply murder. If a given abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's from the latin -cidium and denotes killing, not specifically illegal killing (cf justifiable homicide, suicide). Mr Potto (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Mr Potto is right; the -cide prefix actually means killing, thus suicide (you can't murder yourself). —Мандичка 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You're doing it wrong. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Add to that "infanticide". It's not murder - that's why people are charged with that and not murder. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Infanticide is considered murder; it's intentional, unlike homicide. Sorry for that. --92slim (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the word origin, in common usage a term like "homicide" by itself typically means murder: the willful and unlawful taking of life. If it's not precisely murder under the law, it typically has a qualifier, such as "justifiable" or "negligent". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article Homicide doesn't treat it that way. It opens with "Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being." and makes a distinction for criminal homicide. Mr Potto (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the distinction then would be criminal feticide vs. legal feticide? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. The disagreement seems to be about whether the article should be specifically about illegal feticide or about feticide (both legal and illegal) in general, and I think that's something for discussion and consensus at the article talk page if anyone wants to change it from the way it currently is. I personally have no opinion, and only really wanted to help with the definitions. Mr Potto (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Mr Potto: The issue started because 92slim wanted to delete the article Female foeticide in India entirely because of claim that abortion is not considered feticide in many countries, therefore feticide in India is not a real thing. Then he changed the definition of feticide to say that "feticide is the act of killing a fetus outside of legal abortion," even though that's not the definition. Nobody has a problem with including the relevant information that legal abortion is considered exempt under some feticide statutes. Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place. —Мандичка 😜 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The AfD is closed, so that is moot. The article does appear to reflect the view, which is supported by various definitions, that "Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place". Hence my suggestion that any change to the article away from that would need talk page consensus. Mr Potto (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Like your confusion over the meaning of "homophobia", Bugs, you've shown by your comments about "homicide" that you don't seem to understand how the English language actually works.

The most obvious thing is to point out that prefixes and suffixes (like "homo/homi" and "cide") are NOT governed by fixed rules maintained by some authority -- there is not English Academy. Secondly, even given generally observed rules as to the meanings of certain prefixes and suffixes, actual usage -- whether intentional on the part of the coiner, definitional drift, or simply by being idioms -- determines actual meanings. Finally, for actual legal terms, there ARE given specific definitions which may or may not match "logical" combinations, your impressions, or even popular usage. For the last one, I'll point you to the Cornell University School of Law:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

This is Misplaced Pages, Bugs: words mean what reliable sources say they mean, not what you'd like them or how you've work them out in your mind to mean. If you're going to proclaim you understand the meaning of word, you need to check first. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Common usage supports what I said, which you'll discover if you Google the subject. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, "because I said so" isn't actually an acceptable rationale. I have actual sources, especially to the legal definition -- not to mention an actual understanding of how the English language actually works (hint: do you know the meaning of the phrase "descriptive, not prescriptive"?) -- and you have -- vague handwaving about Google results. See that hole you're standing in? See that shovel in your hand? Now might be a good time put down the implement. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinate block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; relatively new account; repeated personal attacks; made statement of "Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child" along with the uncalled for accusation that I am somehow "A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion" (and all of this regarding the article Female foeticide in India), comments on my talk page that I "obviously don't care" (about this Indiana woman I guess?) and claim that "this is a legal issue" suggest 92slim views WP as a great place to influence people and effect change offline. —Мандичка 😜 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support indefinite block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; not only for what is being discussed here but also for POV-pushing and repeated harassment of other users on and in relation to articles relating to Armenia. Thomas.W 13:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked 92slim for 31 hours for battleground mentality and personal attacks. Considering that he had a clean block log, making a jump to indef seems extreme but I'm not opposed to leaving the thread open in case a different consensus forms.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block- 92slim's blatant pushing of his/her POV here and on the articles (whether they made sense or not) are distracting from any progress in actually improving them. Also, by the disregard for civility 92slim shows, with no sign he/she was going to stop, signifies a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather impede it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Berean Hunter. IMO 92slim's contribs history shows near SPA who edits only about abortion issues/Armenia and genocide/Ottoman Empire and Islam. Huge number of reverts and flippant remarks. In this recent edit, the editor MissionFix is actually correct that officially the Brazilian government has not recognized the genocide ("The Brazilian government has not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide, although the legislatures of Ceará and Parana have." —Armenian Weekly); Slim92 accuses MissionFix of POV pushing and Slim92's argument that the Brazilian Senate basically makes the laws (so I guess they're the state of Brazil?) is flawed and shows the same basic competency issue with interpreting information that we saw in this feticide drama. I know these topics are full of socks and vandals but this comment from IP editor seems familiar. It seems a bit odd that editor would create account in February and immediately jump into experienced user mode with this first edit, and not stop since then. Even creating this article redirect is POV. This is why I'm saying NOTHERE and possible sock of banned/topic banned user. —Мандичка 😜 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, do any comments by User:Wikimandia above deserve a caution about Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition (especially "I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift")? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aronzak, if you look at this ANI, I first mention lulz over him calling me "Wikibandia" (I honestly did laugh). Then he claimed I created this ANI "for lulz." So I said I did not, but it was lulzy. I don't see why I should be cautioned, nor was I aware of any rule saying you can't say lulz, or that saying this was offensive. Additionally, that essay seems to be about ignoring true vandals and trolls (ie don't feed the trolls), which I don't think 92slim is. —Мандичка 😜 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Deny recognition is an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline. Thomas.W 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Would Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary_sanctions apply here? Maybe some warning notices are in order. Liz 14:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I think the articles about feticide, infanticide, gendercide etc should be protected under the same discretionary sanctions that abortion and genocide topics have. I don't edit these articles normally but I imagine they are problematic. —Мандичка 😜 15:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've alerted User:92slim to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB, since the abortion sanctions apply to Female foeticide in India. 92slim was previously alerted under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thanks, but do you think it needs to be clarified somewhere that these articles fall under the abortion sanctions? 92slim's whole argument is that abortion is not feticide, so I think 92slim (and other editors with same POV) might dispute this. I don't have much experience working with sanctioned topics, so I'm not too sure how they work, except for noticing the warning template that comes up that they're protected. —Мандичка 😜 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to put a sanction banner on the article. Any edits, anywhere on Misplaced Pages that are related to abortion fall under the Arbcom case. The article Female foeticide in India refers to female feticide as 'sex-selective abortion.' If 92slim is hoping to avoid consequences with his argument that it's not abortion, the matter can be reviewed at WP:AE if he winds up being reported there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree it should apply so hopefully nobody will try to use that argument to split hairs. —Мандичка 😜 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership by Sitush

Please can someone review what has been going on at Talk:Babur, certainly from this section onwards. Soham321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly making claims that I have taken ownership of the article, although no-one else seems to be saying so. They've also alluded to possible racism on my part. I have told them that ANI would be the best venue to discuss such a serious behavioural charge, repeatedly made, but they are opposed to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The racism charge is definitely a serious charge. However, i made this charge based on something Sitush had written, and i gave the relevant diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Babur#Ownership_of_the_article Making crude generalizations about any ethnicity is simply unacceptable.

While investigating this complaint, the concerned Admins should also take a look at the edit summaries in the main articles of the following two pages: Daily News and Analysis, and Open magazine, and also the following talk page: Talk:OPEN_(magazine). I reverted the edits of Sitush on both the Daily News and Analysis page, and the Open magazine page a second time because i wanted to give appropriate edit summaries for future editors. I would not have made a third revert. In the talk page of the Open magazine article, Sitush claimed the reference i had given was an Op-ed. This was not true; it was an editorial (from the New York Times). I am mentioning all this because i have no energy to take Sitush to ANI again and again nor do i have the energy to keep fighting with Sitush. I only wish to make appropriate edit summaries in the main article (which is what i did in the case of Open magazine and Daily News and Analysis articles) or else i wish to make a note on the talk page of the main article (which is what i did in the case of the Babur article) and leave it for future editors to sort things out.

I appreciate the fact that Sitush has done some good work on wikipedia including cleaning up several articles. However, Sitush's repeated tendency of not respecting WP:OWN cannot be condoned because of this even if Sitush were to be an academic.

Again, i am not asking for any ruling on Sitush. I am leaving it for future editors to deal with the Babur article. I will reiterate, though, what i had said in the talk page of this article: A senior editor (Calvin999) had written in an edit summary in the the main article on Babur that he is beginning to think Sitush's edits are making the article worse rather than better. These are the exact words of Calvin999 and they were addressed to Sitush: Hello? Don't you understand that splitting it makes worse? Five paragraphs are too many. I'm beginning to think your intentionally trying to make this article worse...)Soham321 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, the talk page on which Sitush and i interacted was of Daily News and Analysis: Daily News and Analysis. There was no interaction between us on the talk page of Open magazine.Soham321 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 is in large part the reason why the mess at the Babur article has become so prominent. I'd take their opinion on the matter with a very large pinch of salt but, as it happens, they have not accused me of ownership or racism anyway. Only you have gone down that road. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said all I that I wish to say on Babur's talk page. Again, Sitush, saying that whatever I say should be taken with a pinch of salt is WP:BADFAITH and rude. I do not want to get involved with any accusations being made that I am reading above and have no knowledge of with regard to racism and ownership, though the recent edit history is not on your side with regard to the latter. If you feel so strongly about Babur's article, why are you only just voicing your opinion on it now, since it's been passed as GA? Because prior to this, as far as the edit history goes, you've never even edited it. You're creating a lot of noise. Stop shouting about things which you deem "wrong" and just improve on what you see. No one will thank you or give you a gold star for moaning instead of doing.  — Calvin999 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed the talk page and noticed Talk:Babur#Copyright violations where Soham321 claims that Sitush was wrong to revert an edit as a copyvio. Sitush pointed out that the source said:

Thus, Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son, Vikramjit, who was being harassed by his brother. ... Babur received the Rani's envoy with honour.

while Soham321's diff included:

Thus, when Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was in conflict with his brother, Babur received her envoy with honor.

Soham321 argues on the talk page that if Sitush thinks there is a problem, Sitush should fix it rather than reverting the edit. In an ideal world that would be true, but in that ideal world, editors would not copy/paste text from sources into articles. The talk page show other evidence of significant problems with two contributors, one being Soham321, and it is quite understandable that Sitush cannot spend hours fixing other people's problems, particularly copyvios.

There is a claim above that an edit summary by Calvin999 supports Soham321's position: Calvin999's edit joined two paragraphs in the lead, presumably to satisfy the formula that four paras in the lead is good, but looking at that edit shows that Sitush was correct to split the paras as they deal with quite different issues. In summary, Sitush is helping the article, while others are not. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give the relevant diffs instead of putting words in my mouth inaccurately? These are my exact words to Sitush: Even for close paraphrasing you would have to show that the pattern is being consistently maintained throughout the section. While paraphrasing it is inevitable that i would occasionally not do a good job on the first attempt. Also, i was using the american spelling of honor. And this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Babur&diff=prev&oldid=666864209 Soham321 (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge Johnuniq has never made a single edit on the page of Babur, either in the main article or in the talk page. However, in an August 2013 ANI discussion involving me and Sitush, Johnuniq had supported Sitush and had voted for a topic ban for me. Even though John had not made a single edit on the page under discussion at that time (the page on Digvijaya Singh). (I was new to wikipedia at that time, and had unfortunately engaged in edit warring with Sitush being unaware of most of the rules here and was handed--quite rightly in retrospect--a one year topic ban. This was in August 2013.) I am sure there is no restriction, but in my opinion it is in poor taste for someone to repeatedly offer opinion in an ANI discussion on a wikipedia page on which one has never made a single edit, particularly when the problem involves a conflict between two different editors who have been making edits on that page. Soham321 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a good enough reason of have a five paragraph lead, with two of which being one sentence long. It doesn't matter that the issues are different, if it did, we'd have 20 paragraph leads, all one sentence long, otherwise. Point is, why is Sitush suddenly so concerned with this article? In fact, why are all of you suddenly so concerned? None of you look as though you cared before, now suddenly everyone is so interested. A lot is being said, but nothing is being done. If people don't agree with me passing it, improve it. Don't spend days moaning about it.  — Calvin999 11:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnuiq makes a valid point, or many valid points, actually. However, I think we're stepping into a content dispute, which shouldn't be here. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We are, but the accusations of ownership and racism need to be addressed: Soham made them and then expanded on the things 24 hours later. Even their initial accusation was wrong - I've never edited Battle of Chanderi. FWIW, the intention is to improve the article but first we need to eliminate the obvious problems - so obvious that it should never have passed GAN. There are voluminous comments about this on the talk page and elsewhere. I am aware of the material that Soham321 added but prune-and-rebuild is sensible when things are as bad as this. The rebuilding requires reading the heavyweight academic sources that were totally ignored and, as Abecedare notes, But the main issue is that the article does not cite some of the best available sources on the subject, which are currently listed in the Further reading section. Fixing this will take more time and effort. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That has passed. You are focusing on the wrong thing. Okay, you think it shouldn't have passed, we all get that. You've said it countless times. If you feel that strongly, improve the article how you seem fitting.  — Calvin999 11:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to John and Soham re: rephrase or remove the copyvios in the context of demonstrating ownership. Those were added after the GA pass, although there were also some in the article from before the pass. I'm not arguing here that you are unfit to review GANs, though that might be a conversation for another day. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that you were arguing that. And I didn't miss your point. But you have persistently missed mine: you've gone about this the wrong way. Prior to last week, the history shows you'd never even edited Babur.  — Calvin999 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have edited it before last week. I don't know what tool you are using to derive that impression but it is yet another unfounded observation, like the claim from Soham re: Battle of Chanderi. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend the "Edits by user" link on the article history page? The scroll buttons don't work, but you'll notice it mentions 208 edits. If you set "Max edits" to a value higher than that, you'll see a list going back to 2011. NebY (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also not hard to look at the entire history which shows 3155 edits: Sitush's first edit was in December 2011, while Calvin999 started in 10 June 2015 and Soham321 in 12 June 2015. Sitush made 109 edits before June 2015. There are two quite separate issues: the first is Soham321's inappropriate editing and personal commentary, and the second concerns Calvin999. The second is a minor distraction—it concerns the three-day review to promote Babur as a good article (GAN permalink and Talk:Babur/GA1) and claims that promotion should not have occurred (examples: Talk:Babur#WP:GAR and Talk:Babur/GA2). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained / POV removal of content by User:Packerfansam

User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism

Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject

Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews

Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state

I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:

John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"

Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.

I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.

Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. Liz 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to purge Misplaced Pages of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted). I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. —Мандичка 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I thought this was possible but even as of today, he continues to create articles on Wisconsin politicians as he has been doing for years. Please look at his contributions. —Мандичка 😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of them until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit to Precursor (religion), where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was WP:COMPROMISED? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage

Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it.

• Support, as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for Packerfansam, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a very punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have a some responsibility to WP:ENGAGE...? _Fortuna 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Modify — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month minimum seems called for. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support shorter block, given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor may be salvageable. Miniapolis 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've never seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "Packerfansam". Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. Chillum 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  So your premise is that blocking an editor is a good way to recover one? As opposed to alienating them? Strange. Eric Corbett 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  If he's taken a sudden turn toward the Dark Side, it's probably too late already. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is not hard to reblock if shorter blocks do not work. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, especially as it appears he's never been blocked before. If he's uncommunicative, a reasonable short block might get his attention. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. —Мандичка 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Although Packerfansam doesn't respond directly to warnings, his/her behavior has been altered by them. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as he deleted them from his talk page. Then just today he removed the table about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. —Мандичка 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Misplaced Pages time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. —Мандичка 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages:
• 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He responded here but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then replied here with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. This change on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The first warning might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of Don't template the regulars. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning here), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd expect to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he responded on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The response on Capitalismojo's page here (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians (, , , ) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one , in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. —Мандичка 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on this one when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the delinking, he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted once in this history but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in this thread ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He really isn't being that disruptive.
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, but he is being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days:

Todd Novak - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary.

Madison, Wisconsin - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified".

Argus (dab) - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive.

Precursor (religion) - removing non-Christian examples; no edit summary.

What assurance - indeed even what indication do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not really that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. —Мандичка 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Berean Hunter and Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have no edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, and after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, then the editor can hopefully begin editing in accordance with WP's policies. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he should not have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That clock just started 15 minutes ago as he is back and blanked the notice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He responded above about 30 minutes ago. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing again at Kenny Loggins

We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the Kenny Loggins vandal. IPs involved today are:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now another spate of hoaxing by 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And very quickly after that one we have this one: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Still looking for an appropriate rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Maybe this will help: IPv6 range calculation tool. It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I really shouldn't be messing with any ranges... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Pinging Mr. IPv6 Jasper Deng to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents here? --NeilN 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war at Mark Lippert

I'm sorry to report I am finding myself drawn into a slow edit war with White Anunnaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this page. Here are the basic facts:

• Mr. Lippert is the U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
• A few months ago he was assaulted by a political extremist who apparently believed that an appropriate way to protest for peace was to slash a diplomat in the face.
• White Anunnaki added some content to the article that was backed by a source that I found to be of dubious quality
• I reverted them, and we had a discussion on my talk page, see User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 34#Mark Lippert.
• They argued that it was an official government news source and therefore reliable
• Turns out it was an official government news source. Said government being the Kim regime in North Korea.
• To me that seems like an obvious propaganda outlet for the DPRK as most North Korean people do not speak English and almost none of them have access the global internet due to both lack of infrastructure and the fact that it is against the law for them to even own a device capable of doing so. I've also never read a neutral news report that referred to the "puppet police" and "madcap saber rattling." So, this isn't a news source for North Koreans, it is obviously directed at outsiders.
• Yet White Anunnaki insists I am simply projecting my own biases onto the source and that all news sources have a bias of some sort, so we should use it anyway, and they have restored it again
• Full disclosure: I am an American, and as it happens I went to high school with Mr. Lippert. We weren't friends or anything but I think we may have had some clasees together at some point. I haven't seen him or spoken to him since I graduated right around this time 25 years ago. I had no idea what had become of him until I read about his incident, but there it is.
• I wonder if White Anunnaki may also have something they would care to dsclose regarding their motivations for insisting on using such a questionable source when sources form actual, reputable news sources exist and they are aware of them.

So, I don't want to keep reverting them, but I also don't want DPRK propaganda websites being presented as reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. I therefore ask for other admins to step in and do whatever they feel is best. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted White Anunnaki and I removed the source. This discussion should be moved to the article talk page and the user should be warned about adding unreliable sources to BLP's. Frankly, anyone named "White Anunnaki" (a veiled reference to racist theories claiming white people are descended from aliens) should probably be blocked. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I did caution them about using reliable sources when they first added it, as even before I realized it was the DPRK it was abundantly clear to me that it was not an acceptable source. And as you indicate, I'm not so sure this one incident constitutes the entirety of the problem, that's why I brought it here instead of the article TP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My motivation is Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. The bias against Korea is typically Anglo-American. The facts that I obtained from the source are not even controversial or extraordinary: it's only the name of the organization of which the perpetrator was a member of, and that information is confirmed by other sources, as discussed on your Talk page. White Anunnaki (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What bias? I live in the United States and Koreans are some of our most beloved immigrants. We love their food and their culture, and South Korea is one of our closest allies and trading partners. Where is this bias? Don't make me start singing Katy Perry now... Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to North Korea... The "reliable" American media prints the stupidest stories about them which are then proven to be false. Here's one example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/story-kim-jong-un-uncle-fed-dogs-made-up White Anunnaki (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are engaging in WP:POINT editing then, by adding sources from North Korea? That's not how it works. Yes, the US media has very serious problems, but you don't solve it by compounding the problem. For example, I made the mistake of turning NPR on this morning only to find it cheerleading the candidacy of Jeb Bush -- after spending the previous week cheerleading the candidacy of Hilary Clinton. Great, just what we need, a 40 year legacy of the same two political dynasties whose policies don't seem to change or differ when implemented, meaning we now have a monarchy, not a democracy. It's a bit different than North Korea, however, because I haven't been disappeared (yet). But that's neither here or there. Stop adding crappy sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea what NPR means nor do I really understand any of your references... But sure, I won't edit that page anymore. I want to make it clear I didn't engage in edit war, though. I only reverted his edits twice, and once I added an extra source from a different country to please him. And I also took the time to explain my edits on his Talk page. White Anunnaki (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fairly disingenuous (not to mention irresponsible) to accept a North Korean source to support a claim about anything in the West, or South Korea for that matter. I'm sure I don't have to go into detail about how much of a clusterf*ck North Korean "media" is. They should only be trusted as a lightly used primary source, and humor. §FreeRangeFrog 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make the point (before I even realized this was from DPRK) that no reputable news source would describe the joint U.S.-Korean military exercises that are held each year as "madcap saber rattling" nor would they describe the police as "puppets" and insinuate that all Koreans agree that slashing the U.S. ambassador's face was an legitimate way of protesting those war games, but they were not receptive to that message. DPRK's English-language internet news obviously does not serve the purpose of informing the Korean public, it is a mouthpiece for the party line, directed entirely at the outside world.

I'm concerned that their response to all this is just to say they won't edit this one article again, as this is obviously a more basic problem of understanding what is and is not a reliable source. I would feel the same way if they had used certain U.S. sources, such as Infowars or similar wingnut websites. They are obviously not competent journalists known for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone should be able to see that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I used the search function and went through articles to see where the DRPK news service was cited, and found that it was used to represent the position of the North Korean government. I may have missed some, but I think that the source is generally not being used as a reliable source per se. BMK (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairbairn

B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User was edit warring previously with editors on removing political figures on country pages. After the various wars, he " switched sides" and began making pointy edits by adding political figures to pages. Additionally, he constantly blanks his user page making warning tracking very difficult. He seems more interested in disrupting other editors than editing positively to Misplaced Pages. His page history is full of edit war notices. Example of his recent pointy crusade: 1 2 3 Jcmcc (Talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree with his initial point. Pictures of US presidents and the White House were over represented on foreign country pages and should be removed and added to the /relationship pages. That's typical Anglo-American bias (Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus). White Anunnaki (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel one way or the other about it. He simply happened to add a pointy picture to one of the pages I actively watchlist. I started looking through his history and quickly found that he is a problem-user. His actions have been almost all some form of troublesome editing (edit warring, being pointy, or blanking his own page) Jcmcc (Talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE. His talk page showed he even built a table dedicated to these photos, breaking it down by country. The reason so many of these photos are used is because U.S. government photos are copyright free and thus we can use them. In some cases we have few or no other free images of these world leaders at our disposal to use. This campaign, plus other disruptive edits, shows his purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. —Мандичка 😜 00:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not to get all patriotic over here, but Misplaced Pages has made me a very big fan of the apparently uniquely American concept that almost any image or other document produced by a representative of the U.S. governemt in the course of their duties belongs to everyone and can be used without permisssion. If other countries were so liberal in this regard (I know, I know that sounds crazy, but apparently in this one way we are actually more liberal than most other countries), I'm sure we would all be happy to reuse those images as well. I'd be interested to know if this user is aware of this situation and if that changes their understanding of why we use so many such images. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know what you mean. If only B. Fairbairn would devote his energy to getting every government to make all their libraries open copyright. —Мандичка 😜 09:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guys, If you go through my long history you will see I have made some useful contributions e.g. putting lists into tables, adding extra information, correcting misinformation. Unfortunately I have also got into the habit of not backing down when confronted by bullies.

For the future it may be best if I stay away from country pages altogether, and make an effort not to wantonly annoy self-appointed guardians. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with you are not bullies, they simple don't agree with you. All wikipedians are self-appointed guardians of Misplaced Pages. Please read over wp:point. This is not about your disagreements with the other wiki users, its how you go about it. Your list does not contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. From what I understand, its a list for your point. From your contribs, I have concluded that you are Not Here to build an encyclopedia. That is why I put you on the noticeboard. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with me are not bullies: Agreed
People who continually revert posts, start hate discussions and threaten others with expulsion are bullies.
A guardian helps protect others. The self-appointed guardians I refer to make a point of interfering with all posts they do not agree with.
The one particular list you refer to is mine: that is why it is on my page. If you cannot handle it, remove it, or stay away from there.
You put me on the noticeboard because I argued with your friend. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats a very bold accusation, and unfortunately for you, its wrong. Look at my contribs and you will find that I have been editing the page Albania since before this whole thing started. It was only when you added an out-of-place picture of George W. Bush to the page that I noticed what you were doing, placed a disruptive editing warning on your page and left it be. Recently you appeared on my watchlist due to having other people put warnings up. I then looked into it again and found you had not ceased your disruptive editing. This is not a "hate discussion" its a determination on if you should be removed from the community. Your actions and words are self-condemning. You appear to have no remorse for your disruptive editing and are acting defensive about your *painfully obvious* intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the three edits pointed at earlier in the discussion (on Ireland, Albania, etc.) are completely useless and suggest a misunderstanding of what we're doing here. I have no interest in plowing through all the user's edits; I am interested, however, in seeing if the user understands why those edits are useless (let me state, for the record, that adding a picture of some US head of state with country X's head of state on the page for country X is typically useless, unless some moment of huge historical significance is clearly depicted--one thinks of the Big Three at Jalta, etc.). If they understand that and stop doing it, then we can move on without blocking or banning everyone. They must also understand that they're not being oppressed. I'm also interested in Beeblebrox's assessment. Thansk, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of vandalism

Reference this incident of allegations, user Abdulqayyumfsc has levelled serious allegation against me with incivility. This has hurt me as anyone would be. I suspect it to be the case of meatpuppetry or perhaps sockpuppetry as similar allegations were posted after I AfDed the article. He has been canvassing as he cross posted in an attempt to get my edits nuked and blocked. With just 27 edits in English Misplaced Pages and 3 edits in Urdu Misplaced Pages, it is strongly suspected sockpuppetery. User Wikimandia has reverted my edits confirming the allegations in edit summary. Therefore, I request administrator intervention. Regards.  sami  03:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Samee, I truly apologize if I hurt your feelings in my edit summary; however you deleted almost the entire article! Except for the infobox, you cut the article down to two sentences. It is one thing to delete the promotional info, but you chose to remove neutral information such as the section about his education. You even deleted the WP:PERSONDATA, which seems to me the result of someone trying to delete as much as possible and not carefully editing the information. Since you had already nominated it for deletion and it was kept, this is retaliatory editing IMO and if not vandalism, is certainly disruptive. This is not acceptable. Also I don't understand the edit summary that "Removed wordpress reference and another reference that is the main domain www.ptv.com.pk (can't be used as reference)". Wordpress is not a blacklisted site, but if it's self-published it's preferable to just put "better source needed" instead of removing the information. I don't understand why Pakistan Television Corporation can't be used as a reference either. I don't know if this constitutes vandalism, but (as I said above) it seems to me to be rather disruptive. —Мандичка 😜 04:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• • There is no problem in citing Pakistan Television Corporation but does citing the main domain make sense? What if I make a claim and cite only the main domain that does not back the claim. While wordpress is not blacklisted, the wordpress reference used in the article was not acceptable and reliable. My edits were not retaliatory in any sense. Because you're just assuming it a retaliation and not bothering to check references, all my edits to maintain the integrity of the Misplaced Pages would only appear vandalism and disruptive. The very wordpress reference you're favoring refers to the comment made by Mr. Rehmat Aziz and who knows this blog is not self-published but one thing that is confirmed is that the comment made by Rehmat Aziz is self-published. The education section was not cited with references for years and one reference that was cited was the website of Allama Iqbal Open University that did not back his claims. In fact, my edits to the article were in accordance with the policies.  sami  04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per this rfc PERSONDATA is deprecated and subject to removal. As for the rest, Samee's edits are clearly not vandalism. Vandalism is limited to edits made in bad faith, typically with intent to harm the encyclopedia. Even without judging the quality of the edits, its still clear they were made in good faith. (That doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just not vandalism) Please be more careful in calling other editors vandals; it is extraordinarily rare to come a cross an actual vandal with more then a few dozen edit, and calling editors vandals when they aren't is highly inflammatory. Monty₈₄₅ 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ahh I didn't realize that about PERSONDATA. However, I don't agree this was done in good faith, given his desire to delete the article and then basically deleting it through editing. If only promotional things had been removed, then yes, I would agree, but why remove the very first section about the man's education? And he also removed the sections about his awards, including an award from the Pakistan Ministry of Education. Please note that the fact that the article subject had received these awards were among the reasons some gave to keep the article, per WP:ANYBIO. I really don't know how you can look at the before and after edits and say that was done in good faith. —Мандичка 😜 04:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • AfDing the article was not my desire to get it deleted but to have community consensus. I respected the consensus and my edits were in accordance with the opinions held in discussion. Award from the Ministry of Education is again not backed by reliable sources. Do you want me to add {{Cn}} at the end of each sentence. I once again REQUEST you to assume good faith. I am curious to know what is making you believe that I edited in bad faith and the other user in good faith.  sami  04:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that you were seeking consensus; you wanted the article deleted. You stated several times the subject fails GNG, "If the subject is really notable, they should not have spammed multiple Wikipedias just to have autobiographies and biographies," and also argued that his contribution of designing a virtual Khowar keyboard was not legitimate. His article has huge number of sources for his awards at the bottom; they're not properly inline. Yet you deleted the whole award section and all these links describing his achievements., (very specifically mentions the Ministry of Education commendation), . Why are these not reliable sources? Why did you delete them instead of using them to improve the article? I don't know who the "other user" is that you're talking about, since you and I are the only one who has edited this article in the last month; please show me those edits and I'll take a look. —Мандичка 😜 08:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell you're headstrong and not willing to collaborate, engaging in discussion with you is in vain. You have been rightly blocked.

What do you mean by consensus. Consensus does not always mean keep it. Once again you're quoting my comments out of the context to weigh your arguments, which I have already told you on your talkpage. Taken from your talkpage and written by you Fine. Since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I'll edit anyway, and not this talk page. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57 am, Today (UTC+5), your statements are self-contradicting. I was referring to the user Abdulqayyumfsc that approached you and cross-posted the same on some other users' talkpages per WP:CAN. Should that user had any objections, the user should have reverted my edits or started discussion on talkpage instead of initiating the proxy discussion and levelling serious, unethical, and uncivil allegations without evidence against me. That's my view. That's quite similar to what an administrator Monty845 has hinted as above.  sami  08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team editing

There seems to be tag-team editing going on between User:Strangeguy80467 and User:Creepywhore749 , presumably with the intention that the first makes an edit, then the second makes another edit that "bakes it in", so that when the second is reverted, the first's edit remains. Note that these edits are similar to those made by User:Fatwhore945, User:Iamawhore872, and other similarly-named accounts, suggesting that this is a sockfarm. -- The Anome (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome:, your edit-summary seemed to break off? _Fortuna 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because the edit summary line has a character limit, and I just cut and pasted my comment above into it, truncating it in the process. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: And also now User:Dumbass8683. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me start a quick SPI. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Creepywhore, Fatwhore, Imawhore and Dumbass should be name blocked in any case. BMK (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at User:Thekillerinside as well. BMK (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's anything to investigate here. Except for an overlap with the article topics and dates (over a one month period), and a red link user page with a slightly provocative name, I don't see any connection. The entire contribs can be summarized as:

• May 3: Maria Brink - moved genre to front of list and capitalized / not reverted to date
• May 6: Black Widow (In This Moment album) - added single release to list / not reverted to date
• May 31: Blood (In This Moment album) - removed stray comma
• May 31: In This Moment - removed nu-metal genre and associated reference / reverted June 10 in roll-back of other copious vandalism, possibly not targeted specifically

-- Willondon (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So, except for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, there's no connection between the editing of the accounts that you can see, is that right? BMK (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I took your suggestion to mean looking for a connection where the accounts are acting in concert. The goal of the other accounts is obviously vandalism. I summarized Thekillerinside's contributions because they were few and easy to analyse (eight edits spanning four articles), and because I didn't see any intent to vandalize there. I've amended "doesn't like there's anything" to "doesn't look like there's anything" (oops). I'd be happy to further amend it to add "to me" at the end there. Or maybe I misassumed what you were suggesting we look for. Willondon (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to nameblocks for Dumbass8683, Creepywhore749, Iamawhore872, and Fatwhore945? They go beyond "slightly provocative." The other names mentioned do not appear to be as blatant. Edison (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd fully support nameblocks for those, myself – especially the last three. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already done. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

nazism sidebar

Director called my edits vandalism just because i pointed out we dont have to have Strasserism twice in the sidebar its redundant, whats more is that he thinks that its up to him to decide what logo should be be used on the sidebar despite not having consensus on it Dannis243 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One I realised that Strasserism is not the same as the philosophy of Alfredo Stroessner, I looked through the page history and could find nothing problematic on DIREKTOR's part. Why didn't you attempt to talk with him about it? Just a couple of minutes ago, he even removed the duplicate link. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

i did not remove anything i moved it to the proper place! i already said that that is not mainstreampart of NSDAP ideology and should be in the related topics in the sidebar not in the ideology section just like neo nazism! Dannis243 (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please do something about this fella? He's been edit-warring and generally being disruptive on the Nazi Germany article and Nazism sidebar, posting fake RfCs, demanding the same changes over and over again, ignoring consensus, etc. This is a good example: he's edit warring to push some flag instead of a logo for a logo entry in a template.. reverted, and not a word on the talkpage. Seems a kind of grudge after he couldn't have his way at Nazi Germany for the fourth time... -- Director (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

you have also been edit warring and ignoring consensus in the TALKPAGE there is no soupport for your version either! i never said it has to do with some south american dictator, i olny said Strasserism (Strasser brothers of germany) was not a mainstream part of NSDAP ideology and therefore should be mentioned in the related section of the sidebar just like neo nazism, also he keeps removing my logo in the sidebar even though his version does not have any consensus either Dannis243 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This sort of discussion should occur on the "TALKPAGE" Dannis! Yes I changed the logo. A couple weeks ago I replaced the one I myself(!) introduced with consensus years ago. And we introduced the previous logo because there was no simple Nazi swastika to contend for the spot (there was some Luftwaffe decal or something). Now there is a simple swastika, so I introduced it in good faith. Only to have you childishly restore the stupid flag from years ago, with no imaginable coherent rationale. I can't even get my mind around the logic that says "you replaced the old version - so that means I can do what I like!". If you're for the "consensus", then restore that. If you're against it - then seek consensus for that flag. But I will say this: a flag is not a logo, and it looks out of place.

Strasserism was a part of Nazi ideology until 1932. Strasser was a Nazi until 1932. For most of its existence, it was a branch of Nazism. It belongs in the Ideology section, where it stood for years now. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere changing every biographical political article infobox to officeholder

Therequiembellishere appears to be engaged in making wholesale changes of infoboxes on biographical political articles to Infobox officeholder, despite being advised otherwise on his talk page by Bagunceiro and I, which he appears to have ignored for the past four weeks despite my best efforts to redirect him to respond to the discussion on his talk page several times in the edit summaries as well as two messages I sent on his talk page.

Therequiembellishere was asked by Bagunceiro on 12 May why he is changing MP infoboxes to "officeholder and going against the instructions for Template:Infobox officeholder which states that the appropriate derived template should be used, and Infobox MP is clearly the most appropriate.

He responded on the same day claiming that he's "been told" in the past that using those titles involves an unnecessary redirect and that "officeholder" was best but understands that it's possible the precedent has changed since then.

I responded the following day, supporting Bagunceiro stance that the template provides clear guidelines on infobox to use. I added, there is no harm in there being a redirect that is the whole purpose of redirects therefore there is no reason for doing this and asked him to please stop doing this.

He failed to respond to this and continued to change the infoboxes on 22, 23, 26 and 28 May.

I reverted these changes back and sent him another message on his talk page advising him again that Template:Infobox officeholder states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, despite previously being advised of this (from Bagunceiro and I), why he is changing every infobox to officeholder? I asked him to either stop doing this, explain why he continues to do this (as per WP:BRD) or the matter can be taken to WP:ANI.

Therequiembellishere decided to ignore this again and on 11 and 15 June continued to WP:EDIT WAR and change the infoboxes to officeholder.

After I reverted these back, he finally responded on 16 June appearing to concede that the most appropriate infobox should be used but then continued to do the same thing. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It says clearly at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

You have not done so; please do so immediately. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. User notified by Robert McClenon, here Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had similiar problems with this editor over a few years, concerning succession boxes. Also note, the editor's talkpage hasn't been archived since 2009. This may be a WP:COMPETENT issue. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin eyes please - Rachel Dolezal, Transracial, Transracial identity, Racial transformation (individual), associated AfDs

Hello all, there is currently an off-wiki campaign in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal case to have an article on the neologism Transracial or similar. The fact that we don't currently have an article on what would be a clearly important medical or sociological condition should tell you all you need to know. Some reliable (and unreliable) sources have used the term (mostly in scare quotes, it has to be said), and some editors have dug up older (as old as 2008!) references to the word. Earlier today I blocked User:Andhisteam for clear trolling on this issue (see Dolezal's talk page and elsewhere for that one), and I have just AfD'd Transracial identity, assuming good faith as it was an established editor who created it (though they haven't edited much recently). Given that this is, for Dolezal, a BLP issue - not to mention a serious issue of WP:OR, WP:V etc., more eyes are requested on all of these articles. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite - I note you've been WP:CANVASSING editors to your AfD of the article I recently created. I'd like to request you not do that. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That accusation is evidently flatly wrong. The article you created is the third article on a WP:HOAX concept that Internet trolls have propagated in the last week, and the third subject of an ongoing AfD over the same term or concept. Obviously users who have participated in the AfDs of the other attempts to get this hoax into Misplaced Pages have a legitimate interest to be made aware of new hoax articles based on the same Internet meme. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down. This is an edit discussion, not the Battle of Waterloo. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you've read WP:CALMDOWN. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Callmemirela. My bad. Comment stricken BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Bloomsday, when everyone should consume calming Guinnesses and kidneys. The Battle of Waterloo is the day after tomorrow. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'd wanted to canvass the AfD, I'd hardly have posted in on the Rachel Dolezam talkpage, which is currently habited by people who support getting the whole Transracial issue into the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination), which isn't going anywhere--the discussion isn't, and that DAB shouldn't be going anywhere either, at least not now. I'm tempted to revert the page to an earlier stage, something that makes sense considering that the two recent additions are under discussion, but I'm afraid that will only add to the shitstorm. I suggest we let the two other two AfDs play out. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is the right decision, Drmies. While I don't think the concept is a hoax, there are clearly some trolls involved in recent editing which you can tell by the gibberish in the edit summaries. There is no deadline and I think when this subject is expanded upon, and I think it eventually will be, there will be sufficient sources to write proper articles. Liz 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not a hoax, but not ready for primetime. Trolls will need to be handled in the usual way; semi-protection can be liberally applied if necessary. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

TWO blatant NPAs by Viriditas on my talkpage

I'm quitting Misplaced Pages anyway, because of the ongoing hypocrisy and harassmwent nature of its overweening bureaucracy and as many know, I loathe this place which I consider a bearpit of negativity and institutionalized hypocrisy. But a classic case in point of that hypocristy was just made by Viriditas on my talkpage and it sums up the rank perversion of this place and its pretenses about "behavioural guidelines". The diff is here the NPAs are

• "indictive, vengeful, unforgiving, resentful, jealous and bitter"
• and last but not least " find a good psychiatrist who will treat you. "

All who make such psychiatric pronouncements as that last one are not qualified to do so - especially coming from someone who refused to read anything I said about the POV problems and my opponent's own behavioural violations and took their side while claiming to be a moderator. Driving someone to anger and frustration as was done to me as a way t o find others to side against me is the tactic, trotting out the 'go find a psychiatrist line and others who have said "paranoid delusional" and worse is WP:BAITing and against guidelines. this is such a rank and obvious violation of NPA that I must make this comment here, even though I am quitting Misplaced Pages and will NEVER be back. I will, however, be writing about t his kind of behaviour and those who perpetrate it as a way to avoid discussing content issues and instead turn it into attacks on those who raise them. A recognizable propaganda technique, in fact, and that's not paranoid pointing that out, it's a statement of well-documented fact.

I doubt any action will be taken against him (or her or whatever he/she is); there are those here who get away with bloody murder while pretending to be the voice of reason as he/she has. but nothing in their scolds against me has been rational, and it's all b een personal attacks. I noted also a while back while researching this user during my block that I'm not the only one who's had such problems with him/her.

I have little faith in this place; in fact, I have zero faith in it; no doubt there will the "shut up Skookum1" crowd show up, and those repeating other NPAs they have made here in the past.

But who are you all really, those who make such personal attacks with such ababdon? A bunch of nobodies, that's who.

But an NPA is an NPA, and he's/she's made several against me before. So is anyone going to do anything about it? I'm not holding my breath.....

To think that me calling WTM "ill-informed" (which he is) was an NPA and comments like Viriditas' are stock-in-trade and par for the course.....adieu Misplaced Pages, I'm done done done done and done.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record: User:The Interior blocked Skookum1 for three months beginning on 16 March for "battleground and disruptive editing, personal attacks". After the block expired, Skookum1 returned to Misplaced Pages on 17 June to attack six different editors. Here are some highlights from this barrage of personal attacks and incivility:

• User:WhisperToMe ("pandering to whining and pleading by WTM...harrassing me and demanding I stop 'interfering...American-Texan-Chinese now OWNing articls about BC... Sino-globalist bias is also very much not just in evidence but his whole agenda... i still think he's not one editor but a team, and if he isn't then prove it by opening his edit summary instead of concealing it; CHECKUSER is called for but given the bureaucracy is staffed by the same kind of people who have hounded and condemned me I have better things to be doing with my life and time...WTM went out and looked for enemies to help condemn me with - he was polling, in other words...he hasn't been honest or respectful ever since he barged into Canadian wikispace. He's played you, and won. Maybe he'll be Number One someday...He is a liar...the battlefield has always been of his making; and he enlisted supporters and blatantly polled for support by those hostile to me. but who gets blamed? His victim...")
• User:Legacypac ("his ally-in-enmity LegacyPac...Legacypac and others from the political-activist branch of Misplaced Pages will no doubt be happy that I am gone...")
• User:Moonriddengirl ("MRG, you plunged in from the start saying you didn't want to have to research the previous months, and the lot of you...yourself...Moonriddengirl; your comment about nobody else commenting about POV being there is no consensus is completely out of line...that you refused to take the time to read - is incredibly hypocritical and alos ironic - because you, too, are ill-informed and willfully so...you can never admit you're wrong and what you claim are guideline-driven actions on your part are actually policy violations.")
• User:The Interior ("...The Interior...b.s. about me writing 20,000 character opuses was a laugh...if you don't have the time to research what you're pronouncing judgement on you shouldn't be pronouncing judgement on it, never mind taking sides as you have done...he token British Columbian who levelled the block against me...")
• User:Viriditas ("...Viriditas...you're nothing more than a hypocrite...you are a harassser and a scold...how many there are out there who intervene on subject and title discussions who have no clue what they're talking about. That includes YOU...You have always been a waste of time...My anger is justified; and so is my contempt for YOU in particular...hilarious that V. 's barntar for me had been, in part, for 'calling a spade a spade'; but when the shit was on his own shovel, he/she turned nasty. Or is he/she on your payroll too, as are Moonriddengirl and The Interior?")
• User:Anna Frodesiak ("...Anna - refused to read anything I had to say, whether here or on the article talkpage...You have supported not just a POV fork but a blatantly OWN one, with loads of ESSAY/TRIVIA bunk and washed your hands of it and walked away...I want to publicly explain to Anna below why her question is a conundrum and list off the controversies that I engaged myself in that needed engaging and gee, which for the most part, I won.")

In addition to engaging in the very same behavior that got him blocked three months ago, Skookum1 immediately returned to the same disruptive editing that got him blocked, adding numerous maintenance tags to articles User:WhisperToMe was working on,, using the article talk page to make unconstructive comments and personal attacks yet again, and making the same attacks on the NPOV board. For coming off a three month block and going right back to the same dispute, making the same personal attacks, and disrupting the encyclopedia in the same, exact way that got him originally blocked, I have asked the original blocking admin to consider reviewing the block that just expired. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just from my personal view: no matter what happened going at each others' throats is a very adolescent behavior and unnecessary drama. Both users, from the diffs, were seriously out of line and just plain ignored all rules. I am not from the "Shut up Skookum1" party. I am condemning the lack of maturity from both users. I mean seriously? Whether Skookum1 was blocked for whatever in the past, but to go out attack? Viriditas, I am sorry but you shouldn't be talking. If you expressed such disapproval of the user, you should had known better than to violate WP:NPA and just report or talk to the user. And I mean talk by talking, not being a douche and go out of ways to make yourself feel better (from what I see). I suggest that both users be punished. This was such an adolescent, childish behavior (even if Skookum1 is leaving Misplaced Pages or not). It doesn't matter if they started it, you have the choice to finish it by reporting them. I expected a lot from experienced users. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you truly understand what's going on here or are familiar with the history. Except for WhisperToMe and Legacypac (Skookum's sworn enemies, although I know Whisper tried to help Skookum1, I don't know about Legacypac), all of the users listed above are editors who have tried to help Skookum1. Many of us spent hours, probably the equivalent of several days in total, trying to help Skookum1 resolve his long-term dispute with WhisperToMe. In return, we have been mercilessly attacked, over and over again. I would suggest that you read the thread in its entirety on his talk page and search the archives for the past discussion. Failing that, you can read Block review - Skookum1 (March 2015); Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban? (January 2015); and Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1 and Skookum1 again (April 2014) as background reading. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet nothing justifies your adolescent behavior and your personal attacks towards Skookum1. And I agree with Jusdafax. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reading partway into the block review was enough for me, along with the WP:DIVA comments at the start of this thread. Since diva's usually stomp off in a glorious huff and then return, I'd suggest a ban or indef to close this sad chapter. That said, Viriditas deserves a WP:TROUT. Come on man, tone it down a notch or two, thanks. Jusdafax 06:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Jusdafax and have blocked. :( I had hoped that this could be avoided, but should have just done this when I was first alerted to the problem.User:Viriditas, I was very grateful when you tried to mediate this, and I wish wholeheartedly that your efforts had been rewarded. Things went badly south and evidently spoiled a working relationship of some long-standing. I think at this stage you'd probably best just disengage. I don't see conversation between you two going anywhere good for anybody right now. :( --Moonriddengirl 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked Skookum1

• Indefinitely blocked User:Skookum1 for immediately resuming WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with User:WhisperToMe upon the expiration of the block. Another timed block, clearly, will serve nothing. As he indicated at the NPOVN, he is adamant that his dispute with the content justifies his behavior ("using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy," he says). In the block reivew on AN, I noted that this had "been the most unpleasant, prolonged harassment I have observed on Misplaced Pages in nearly eight years of editing." The block did receive consensus support at the time (from User:Iridescent, User:Euryalus, User:Resolute, User:Beeblebrox, Guy, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Nil Einne, and User:Lankiveil, with User:SebastianHelm encouraging patience) and several users indicated that indef may have been more appropriate or might be appropriate if he returned without modifying his approach. I do not believe that Skookum1 should be unblocked without some strong indication that he understands the issue and will stop the battleground approach. Content policy concerns do not void behavioral policy concerns. --Moonriddengirl 12:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is both unfortunate and inevitable that this action had to happen. To come come back and repeat the same behaviour literally the same day a three-month block expired for the same reasons is both silly, and an indication that he carried his grudges throughout the duration. I hope Skookum finds another activity that he does enjoy, because I just can't see an unblock happening here soon, and certainly not without some serious reflection on his part. Resolute 13:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  This was another "last chance," thrown away like the ones before. Agree with the indefinite block. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would add that the statement "find a good psychiatrist who will treat you." is well beyond the WP:NPA threshold, Viriditas. Not enough to take action for a single instance, and you've been here forever, so laboring it would be pointless, but please refrain from statements like that in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what I am exactly saying. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• After the last incident this did seem like the likeley result upon his return, although perhaps not so incredibly fast. That he so immediately turned to such harrassment speaks to an attitude that is incompatible with editing here, which is a shame because he wasn't always like that, it seems he just got burned out and rather than taking a break or retiring he elected to go out like this. I can't imagine he didn't know this would lead to an immediate block.

And I cannot agree more with Dennis Brown's comments above. When somene is bahving like this revert, block, ignore is the best approach, not taunt, mock, and gravedance. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have neither taunted, mocked, nor "gravedanced", nor have I ever done such a thing. I have, in fact, spent an incredible amount of time trying to prevent Skookum1 from being blocked, and I opposed the last proposed block here (see the link to the old discussion above). Further, I worked closely with Skookum1, as did others, to try to resolve his problem. Finally, Skookum has complained about being in poor health throughout these discussions. IIRC, it had something to do with his teeth, but likely had to do with other things as well. He was not happy here yet continued to come back. Prior to his last block, he began to engage in a series of erratic behavior. After his block expired, he launched right back into where he left off. Seeing this, I welcomed him back and asked him to confirm my observations. His response was to carry on with the same attacks. Worried about his state of mind (and his declining health), I recommended that he pursue the help and support of a professional. This was not a personal attack of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, disruptive editing.

User Seattleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing on Roger Libby the past few days. Their edits on the article's talk page indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (here). They had done similarly in the past () saying it would negative effect the article subject's customers. After this, the user made this edit on my talk page accusing me deliberate malice that requires admin review and that I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata.

I am requesting admin action on this. It appears that either the user is unable to handle their COI or they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed, there's a dearth of sources on that article and those that are there are almost all primary sources, Seattleditor is removing the tags indicating that fact, that's not cool at all. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued accusations and harassment by User:Beyond My Ken toward IP.

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

User:Beyond My Ken seems to have decided that any IP advocating for removal of an instance of "best known for" phraseology is a sock for Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. After I made a "best known for" removal edit and stood by it for lack of a source, User:Beyond My Ken immediately sought to bully an "outing" out of me and has continued in that line. He launched a campaign of accusation, trial (by him), conviction (by him), and sentencing (by him), constantly threatening to "get an admin involved" (whatever that would entail). He reverted anything the IP (which was me) did with nasty comments and accusations in the unchangeable edit summaries. He seemed to believe that his "conviction" of me for "block evasion" entitled him to delete anything I did without discussion. See User_talk:71.174.213.3 and the histories for Sons of Liberty and Talk:Sons of Liberty.

At one point, it became clear the matter is better discussed on the talk page (vs. edit reversions with barbs in the edit summaries). User:Beyond My Ken there began a campaign to strike out any of my comments on the talk page. At this point an IPV6 popped up and began simply blanking any of my efforts on the talk page with no edit summaries. I gave warnings to the IPV6 about disruptive editing in preparation for requesting a block.

The IPV6 then continued with the same M.O., hopping to two other IPV6s. At one point, the blanking was with the cooperation of User:Beyond My Ken (half by the IPV6 and half by Beyond My Ken). Later, a brand new user (User:Deleteroftrolls) "popped-up" and continued with the same M.O., accusing any reversion of (his) talk page blanking as trolling. Timing of the first appearance of the IPV6, the subject of his convictions, and the strength of his convictions suggest (via WP:duck) that it may be a sock/meat puppet for User:Beyond My Ken. The additional new "pop-up" user User:Deleteroftrolls and should also be investigated as possible sock/meat of the IPV6s and/or of User:Beyond My Ken.

Even after the original dispute about sourcing the "best known for" phrasing was resolved, user:Beyond My Ken has continued to harass me on my talk page. At this point I would find it almost bemusing were it not for the downright seriousness of the attempted outing, bullying, and continued harassment user:Beyond My Ken has conducted.

I am requesting:
1) Blocks for the three IPV6s (or at least the first one).
2) Investigation of User:Beyond My Ken's harassment, with censure if it's determined to be justified.
3) Investigation of possible sock/meat puppetry among User:Beyond My Ken, the three IPV6's, and the new user User:Deleteroftrolls.

The blanking IPV6:
User_talk:2600:1003:B842:999E:0:25:5445:6301
The two IPV6s that the original IPV6 hopped to (presumably):
2600:1003:b85e:4c27:0:47:5b17:3301
2600:1003:b849:3552:0:36:50c1:e401

71.174.213.3 (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IP's birth on June 14, with full knowledge of Misplaced Pages and a mature editing style, as if from the head of Zeus, lead into investigating their identity
• The IPs identity with Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP seems incontrovertible on behavioral evidence; the match is precise, as detailed on the IP's talk page
• The "Best known for IP" is blocked through 2018, so any edit by a sock of that IP is block evasion
• I welcome a CU on myself, which would show that the IPv6 is not me, nor is Deleteroftrolls; I have no idea who they are, but suggest the possibility of a Joe job
• Checkuser needed

BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CheckUser comment: I checked User:Deleteroftrolls and didn't find anything which links it to another account (though I didn't check too deeply). I haven't checked a technical connection to BMK as checks of one's own account (such as to prove innocence) are not granted (see WP:CHK#Grounds for checking), and I don't feel there is enough evidence to link BMK to Deleteroftrolls. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. BMK (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of a "Joe Job" is reasonable. After the way he's treated me and the way he sometimes gets up to talking to others, I can certainly imagine others wanting to make him look bad. I can also imagine him simply doing a great job of covering his tracks. But regardless, after the checkuser fails to give evidence for such wrongdoing, the real focus should be the bullying: continued accusations, attempts at outing, continued harassment and taunting on my talk page, strikes and blankings of talk page material, etc. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the rest, the Best Known For troll is from South America, this is a Verizon IP (and not a proxy) from the US. Unless they've moved or are travelling, it may not be them (even though it does look amazingly similar). Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Amazingly. People move, and I don't believe we've heard from that person for a while. My eggs are totally in the behavioral basket. BMK (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And people also, amazingly, aren't always right when they reactively accuse someone and then slander them all over town. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not always right, but they usually are. They weren't born yesterday. And you had best lose the "slander" comment, lest you be blocked for legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding. You've a lot of gall to threaten like that for me calling his slander what it is. Calling it slander is not a threat of legal action. What could you possibly be trying to achieve with useless peanut gallery commentary like that? If you don't have something useful to say, just stay out of it. Beyond My Ken sure was right when he called this a "drama board". 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got a particular "tell" that confirms you've been here a long time under many different guises. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You and Beyond My Ken need to be specific with your "he seems like someone else" accusations. You can't just declare that one person has the same style as another, or simply declare there's some sort of tell without specifics. That's just more useless and threatening inuendo, and it's just more abuse, and it's slander, and it's off topic distraction. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No "innuendo" here, no "he seems like" extemporizing, I'm saying straight out that you fit the behavioral profile of the "Best known for IP" to a precise "T", and should be duck-blocked on that basis.Just curious, has this "the best defense is a good offense" strategy of yours worked well in the past, or do you just get blocked anyway? Oh, wait, I forgot, you're an inexperienced newbie editor who is being inexplicably picked on by deranged long-term editors. Sure, anyone can see by reading your comments above that you know nothing about Misplaced Pages's processes and have never edited here before June 14th, when you made your first edit. BMK (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay focused here.
The topic of this section is the abuse made by User:Beyond My Ken toward a fellow editor. Whether that fellow editor was an experienced or inexperienced IP; or whether that fellow editor was a "logged on" type; or whether that fellow editor was or was not someone else matters not a whit. The editor as it happened was an "experienced IP" which, while perfectly allowed and perfectly expected by Misplaced Pages policy, is apparently offensive to some users. User:Beyond My Ken chose to attempt to out the other editor, to revert/strike the editor's good-faith discussions on a talk page, and to continue to harass the editor even after all was said and done. And, to continue to accuse with vague arguments and no actual specific evidence that the editor was actually some other heinous troublemaker half a world away. All this because the editor chose to not cave in to User:Beyond My Ken's initial attempts to to push the editor around. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, the proper focus of this thread is: are you the "Best known for IP" or not, since everything flows from that. If you are, then you are not a "fellow editor" in good standing, you are a long term abusive troll - and your sttempts to Wikilawyer things to your advantage are simply more damning evidence of your status. BMK (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG judging by the linguistic style and editing history, I would say BMK is correct in identifying this IP. Its not unheard of for this IP coming to ANI seeking sanctions pretending to be an innocent party. The ISP evidence is not definitive, usually its Verizon in Chile, I have seen the guy travelling with UK, Canadian and US IP used (you could almost track the flights home on one occasion). The WP:DUCK is strong with this one. WCM_email 11:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello WCM. I see you've been involved over on that "BNF" page. Do you think you might be a little jaded or cognitive bias'd to be a little pre-geared-up to perceive a match? Just a thought. Maybe you can give a second look? But anyway, even if I was the South American (which I'm not), I still wouldn't be deserving of the incivility served up by BMK in this process. Nobody is. That's what this is about. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I looked at the page for the "Best known for IP" and it's pretty clear to me that the South American IP is characterized typically by "Nothing but abuse and foul-mouthed vitriol when approached, and continuous after blocks had expired suggesting no willingness to change". It should also be well understood by you-all that The South American is not the only person in the world who has made "best known for" edits, and that many many are executed fully-civilly by others who aren't him -- me being one of them I do say. I'm stunned that BMK has continuously asserted (ad nauseum) some sort of "pattern match" without citing anything specific. As it turns out, if you compare my actual history (not BMK's imagined history) to the South American's patterns as described in the "Best known for IP" page, you would see quite a difference. It's very stark in fact, more so the deeper you get. That and the IP location data says there's no duck here. BMK seems so motivated to convict me of being that South American guy that he even has accused the South American Guy of moving to the U.S.. By the duck standards as they seem to be be interpreted by a few above, we would also be convicting BMK of sockpuppetry based on what the IPV6 and Deleteroftrolls did so "coincidentally" even though the checkuser found no evidence. I'm not looking for that. I'm just looking for a fair shake. BMK's frequent repetition of his vague "pattern match" doesn't do it, look to the specifics. 71.174.213.3 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record 71.174.213.3 is now posting messages which are WP:CANVASSing. MarnetteD|Talk 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is very familiar. The behaviour, the canvassing, and of course the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion. It is trivial to change IPs, you don't need to move locations to appear to come from another country. In my opinion this is the same person. Chillum 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are seeing ghosts with this one, or he's doing an excellent job of using different phrasings and speech rhythms. I know it's hard to see that as evidence, but one of the reasons I spend so much time tracking and blocking socks is because I have a knack for recognising that two different pieces of writing are by the same person. I don't think that's the case here. On the other side, I've been pretty aggressive recently in blocking the webhosts he uses to wander around as well as his domestic Chilean providers, so people should be on the lookout for him popping up in new and different places. That still doesn't mean that this is him.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Amazing how often its true. -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the IP done anything in his 5 days here besides edit-warring and engaging in all manner of denials about his true identity? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The main giveaways from a situation like this are that the "new user" typically ALWAYS has deep and extensive knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy pages and always somehow happens to just "stumble upon" ANI posts, AfD pages, or other discussions which otherwise would be very hard to find without a detailed and in-depth search. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Guys, is this seriously happening? What was even the point of performing a WP:CHECKUSER if you had already made up your minds about this user and had no chance of exonerating him as a sock? Also, the behavior that you are claiming uniquely identifies this guy is anything but. Are you saying that you wouldn't expect an innocent user hounded on his page like he was by BMK to write "the long ANI posts about how unfair people are being to him for preventing block evasion." This is literally saying that defending yourself from banworthy accusations is indicative of behavior that will get you banned. For more information about this kind of reasoning, read The Trial by Franz Kafka. Even if you don't think BMK was out of line, seriously give this IP the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. Let the IP off with a warning. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Congratulations - on your 20th edit ever, you happened to come across this ANI page, happened to find this thread which is in the middle of the page, happened to be familiar with sock puppet policies, ban procedures, check user requests, the fact that we use abbreviations for users (BMK), and of course spoke up in defense of this "other" ip address who is so unfairly being persecuted. So are you saying you are not the same person who posted the previous comments? I'm not saying that you are either, just that when you add up all the circumstances it certainly seems like you are. -OberRanks (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

New user Kaffeburk using a talk page as a political Forum (rather than an editorial discussion space).

There's an editor who by the looks of things has signed up to preach about "Cultural Marxism" on the talk page for the Frankfurt School article. They've been told multiple times to familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages policy, both by myself and by other editors, both on the talk page in question and on their own user talk page. They've already been pointed to WP:FORUM multiple times by multiple editors, so I think this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (particularly in regards to policy) and that a cooling off period is required so they can familiarize themselves with policy and come back with constructive editorial discussion once they understand wikipedia a bit better. Some administrative action to drive the point home seems necessary at this point as it's become WP:HORSEMEAT and the talk page is long and aimless as it is. --Jobrot (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well as usual Jobrot put forward his personal opinion as a "fact". He got quite an arsenal of trick he is using against me and others in order to push his bias political agenda. To slander with false accusations of not following Misplaced Pages guidelines seems to be the favorite trick in order to avoid discussions regarding the content of the article. I try to give a few examples:

(1) Input to discussions clearly aimed at improving the article gets by Jobrot misrepresented as the opposite, as "WP:NOTFORUM" and similar. The favorite trick. I can give quite a few examples. The strategy is to first discredit the user in order to discredit the input from the same user. He uses that strategy to close valid sections, witch in effect is close to vandalism.

(2) Misrepresentation of Misplaced Pages Guidelines. Jobrot twists them around to suit his purpose.

(3) Repeatedly avoidance of central issues.

(4) Repeatedly using Non-independent sources.

(5) Repeatedly characterizing subjects not by their basic or core meaning, but by some controversial statement of the effect of the subject, thus creating a straw man.

The basic problem is that this article handles a fringe conspiracy theory from a few biased left wing academics as if it where a fact. When that is brought up the "book of tricks" is opened up and a cavalcade of smokescreens are put in effect. Neutral point of view is ignored, and so is consensus. Its all about "victory" and keeping the page in it current state for obvious left wing propaganda purposes. I would like some more experienced editor to step into this, and if they have left wing (or any other bias) be able to balance this with intellectual honesty. To "win" is not the goal. Kaffeburk (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jobrot just did it again. Look at the section https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_or_not.2C_the_heart_of_the_matter. The input is clearly a discussions aimed at improving the article, bur he falsely label it as More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY. Please check the section and see for your self. This is in effect vandalism by Jobrot. Kaffeburk (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? Read WP:VAND before coming back here and calling this vandalism. In no way are the edits of Jobrot vandalism, and More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY was from Ian.thomson, not Jobrot (diff). I'd suggest Kaffeburk read the links he has been given (by various users), and drop the stick. The discussion is over. It should stay that way. Not to mention I don't see much in the way of improving the article in the mess that is the talk page (especially in the hatted discussions). All I see there is a political discussion vaguely disguised as attempting to have impact on the article. -- Orduin 19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well what can i do? If you all agree that the left wing version is the truth of the universe its noting i can do. I thought it was just a few radical lefties, but if that's the bulk of the editors the fight is over. It is how ever extremely cowardice of you to not even try to discuss the matter but just use brute force in having more numbers, but if you not do have a democratic view of things then you don't. My wikidays are over. Kaffeburk (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that you are here to prove something instead of dispassionately looking at the totality of sources (not just equal numbers of each view or just the ones you like) and summarizing those sources proportionately. This is not about "The Truth", it is about sources, which you've repeatedly refused to bring up beyond copying existing article citations for books you've clearly never looked at.

For your sake, I recommend you avoid political topics, because you are incapable of editing that field dispassionately. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All the sources used to remove the article of Cultural Marxism are non-independent. Martin Jay, Chip Berlet and Jérôm Jamin. They are all members of the New Left, they all support the Frankfurt School's ideology and all have performed Gramsci's "the long march trough the institutions of power". You not only allow them as sources, you even regard their view of their own critiques to be an academic consensus when clearly its not! Its a fringe minority bias conspiracy theory by totalitarian political extremist and you pull every dirty trick in the book to bury the truth. You don't want to defend your position, because you would loose hard and the you would have to reinstate the article about Cultural Marxism. Yes of course it about sources and you cant find a single independent source that supports your fringe conspiracy theory. Kaffeburk (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to discredit me by User:Montanabw

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

Because of an issue we had over a year ago, User:Montanabw seems to be seeking to discredit me by suggesting that instead of following established guideline WP:NOTRED whilst Wikignoming, I infact wrote it!

User added this text to essay Misplaced Pages:Navigation templates despite opposition from User:Izno, and then suggested with this edit summary that the addition was necessary as I was using it to edit war. This is backed up by this edit on the talk page.

Wording was retained despite Izno's protest, as a couple of other editors had agreed on the wording, but when I came across this yesterday I removed it, as with my own disagreement with the addition, there was no clear consensus. However, I thought the addition of the exact wording from WP:NOTRED was a fair compromise (although that guideline had been altered without prior discussion about 6 weeks ago! (see Misplaced Pages talk:Red link#Nav boxes NO red links) but this didn't seem to be good enough.

User has continually suggested that I wrote the guideline, or am re-writing guidelines to fit my agenda , that I am on a "one-man crusade", and has even tried to enlist the help of another user that he is well aware I have had disagreements with in the past to further their cause, whose own responses to the situation are also borderline bullying.

Conduct seems to be exactly in line with that described at WP:POV RAILROAD. Thanks for your attention. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Without time to look at diffs, I remember that it was (a year ago) about the question if red links in navboxes are beneficial or forbidden. I think an RfC on this question would be a better idea than examining user conduct. I believe that red links of important related topics can be beneficial, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about the conduct, not the content or the guideline. That is for elsewhere. This kind of behaviour needs addressing, especially as the user is doing exactly what I am being accused of and then hiding behind a smokescreen. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was decided somewhere, can't remember where. If somebody could kindly dig up some diffs I think we have a very valid case to ban Robsinden from editing nav boxes. It is disruptive when an editor is working through red links and this editor prevents them from working on something because of red link paranoia. User:Montanabw and User:Lady Lotus I believe had also had run ins with this editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a case where a user was working through some redlinks in a navbox. This is regarding User:Montanabw's behaviour towards other editors. Yours has much to be desired also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(And I think you're referring to the inconclusive Misplaced Pages talk:Red link/Archive 3#No Red Links). --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Would someone who wants to waste time on this please work out whether Rob Sinden is quietly working away on content that he maintains, or whether he is methodically removing red links from navboxes in topics maintained by other editors. If the latter, please close this with a warning to the OP that they should collaborate with people who maintain content, and should not imagine that their preference regarding red links is of such vital importance that it should be imposed on others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think all publishing houses should sack all editors and copyeditors too? This isn't my preference, it's the preference of the guideline. I'm just doing a bit of housekeeping. But whatever your opinion of WP:WIKIGNOME-ing, the issue here is that User:Montanabw is changing the guideline to fit their agenda, then telling everyone that that is what I'm doing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Observations: (1) This is a content dispute. (2) Izno's revert of Montanabw cites WP:NAVBOX, but that guideline allows and even encourages redlinks in navboxes (it even notes down below that the problem with Categories is that redlinks cannot be added to Categories). Robsinden, while you may not have "written" the guideline, you are certainly edit-warring over it/them, in controversion to the more general WP:RED guideline, in order to attempt to enforce your personal preferences. I agree with the above poster that an RfC is more appropriate to this situation(s) than alleging attempts to discredit or to POV Railroad. Focus on edits, not on editors; content, not people or personal behavior or style of discussion/interaction (unless it is egregious, which Montanabw's clearly isn't). I see Montanabw's actions as simply pointing out that, contrary to general practices as she sees them, you have been either cherry-picking, and/or edit-warring over, guideline wording when it comes to discussing your preferred navbox content. These are not attempts at discrediting, but rather stating the facts as she sees them. I see nothing here that warrants ANI, unless both sides/parties are examined in detail, and that might require ArbCom, since a few guidelines and a few articles/templates are involved. Far better to stick to RfCs. Anyway, this is how I see it, based on the diffs provided. I think all sides need to focus on content instead of editors, and use proper dispute resolution. EDITED TO ADD: I totally agree with Johnuniq. Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A point of order, as I don't want this to be about a content dispute, but I am not editing in controversion to WP:RED, which states: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." Also, your quote from Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and navigation templates regarding the disadvantage of category is in relation to navboxes and lists, so you've misread this when you think it explicitly refers to redlinks in navboxes. You'll notice that redlinks are mentioned as one of the WP:CLNT#Advantages of a list, not an advantage of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:RED is an editor-invented guideline not a legal enforcement. I've proposed a revision of it here if people like Montanabw and others would like to comment. Please stop wasting everybody's time and do something useful towards writing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A point of order, as I don't want this to be about a content dispute, but I am not editing in controversion to WP:RED, which states: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles." And guess who added that wording to the guideline less than 24 hours ago, and is edit-warring to retain it? Yep, Robsinden. I've reverted it now, as it seems that what Robsinden alleges that Montanabw has alleged is actually true -- he is re-writing guidelines to suit his personal preferences. Re: WP:NAV: so you've misread this when you think it explicitly refers to redlinks in navboxes; nope, as you admit, it refers to navboxes and you can't deny that. Lastly: I don't want this to be about a content dispute; and that is your problem-- you want to disparage the editor who disagrees with you by bringing her to ANI and making it into a behavioral issue. Unfortunately, the behavioral issues seem to be on your end, in my opinion, and this ANI thread may boomerang on you. Trying to get your way in a content dispute by skipping all DR possibilities and going straight to ANI is generally boomerang-worthy. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, that wording was actually removed on 29 April without prior discussion. I did document this in my initial post, but you clearly didn't bother with that. It had been there for approximately 5 years before that. I merely reverted the change. See, already User:Montanabw's accusations are being fallen for by editors who don't want to believe otherwise. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I did document this in my initial post ... No, you didn't. See, already User:Montanabw's accusations are being fallen for by editors who don't want to believe otherwise. No, we are reading all the diffs you provided and noting that you are trying to turn a content dispute into the indictment of one editor who disagrees with you. You haven't provided any evidence that Montanabw did anything wrong, and you are edit-warring and bringing another editor to ANI instead of using normal dispute resolution in this clear content dispute -- which by the way has many more involved editors than simply you and Montanabw, so fixating on her is another thing that's not appropriate here. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are flawed and should be more used more flexibly - and that is for the long-term benefit of the encyclopaedia. There are those who cannot act with even the smallest deviation from the guidelines (which are not rules or policies), regardless of how unhelpful those guidelines are to readers or editors, but they are best ignored if there is a benefit to the encyclopaedia, which there undoubtedly is here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, whether the guidelines are "flawed" is irrelevant. The issue here is not the guideline, but the actions of an editor. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you've had your POV ignored for the long-term benefit of the encyclopaedia, I really don't see a problem: you are one of the more disruptive editors I have come across on here, so if you have had a minor taste ofyour own medicine, you may just learn a lesson from it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, could some passing admin close this relatively pointless set of accusations? An RfC has been opened on the matter, which is probably the best place for attentipon to focus, rather than the ever-tiresome dramah boards. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I really hope a non-involved admin can look at this seriously and look beyond the issues regarding guideline disagreements and properly into User:Montanabw's accusations and conduct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good, I'm sure they'll spot your edit warring and warn you against your close violation of WP:3RR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls Location Dispute

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

Hi All,

This is the incident i want to bring it to light , some miscreant administrators of Hoggenkkal page are misusing their privileges to update the page as per their knowledge and reverting edits of majority people with credible information, and they are not updating the page even though complete proof is provided to them and suppressing freedom of speech and information by blocking,reverting and finally responding with irrelevant information on talk page.

I Hope wikipedia will consider this issue and look into the matter as the freedom information is at stake due to miscreants from that page. Please find below the issue and resolve it as soon as possible as the region Hoggenkkal falls is integral part of Karnataka from many centuries.

Page : https://en.wikipedia.org/Hogenakkal_Falls Change Location from Tamilnadu to Karnataka Proof : https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Hogenakkal+Falls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthick1980 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

NOte. Google Maps should not be used as a source. Use a Govt source instead. @Karthick1980:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the "miscreant administrator" who blocked this account for ignoring the seven references placed in the article and repeatedly changing this without any discussion and just blanking any warnings. And the "irrelevant information" I posted is to refer him to past discussion on the same as well as the numerous references inline. —SpacemanSpiff 15:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your desysop is in the mail, miscreant "Spiff". I suggest you transmogrify into a slug the size of the Chrysler building and stop messing around. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with the good doc: ::And before I forget, this used to be the work of the community banned Naadapriya(not notifying as he has stopped using that account a few years ago) which is how I first got to this page. I haven't been around for a while, so not sure if there's anything to track on that front currently. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So, when did you become the admin of the Hogenekkal Falls, SpacemanSpiff? On a serious note, should the article be semi-protected? And I believe this section can be be closed. The matter is merely a content dispute, not worthy of ANI. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never protected the article as I usually just blocked the socks, but the article has a protection log longer than many of the India articles, and I'd say for good reason. If semi-protection is removed, it'd just go back to the territory wars.—SpacemanSpiff 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think Spiffy owns the falls--his family basically controls the area, which is how I got to be named "honorary Tamil". It's not a content dispute, really: someone messing with the article in a way that contradicts what the references says, that's behavior. I've had a quick look at their edits and I think that if Karthick1980 continues this particular dispute in the article they deserve an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for confirming that wiki is not a credible source of information, update whatever you want and block whoever you want..!! Now on wiki is completely blocked from our network..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthick1980 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

BöriShad

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

We have a user here named BöriShad, who has recently been really in-collaborative and uncivil/aggressive . He has recently made many random reverts/removal of sourced information with no proper explanation and has clearly not wasted any time to accuse me and other people of sock-puppetry , or attacking other ethnic groups . I also warned him that he should stop this kind of behavior, but he didn't really seem to care . --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The content disputes here are not at all clear to me. We're obviously not dealing with vandalism, but rather a POV-driven matter. However, edit summaries like "iranians ruined it" are unacceptable. Note also the anti-"iranian" comments here, Talk:Atabeg#Atabeg. BöriShad, I'm not saying HistoryofIran is without fault (they also appear provocative), but you're crossing a line. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake. These people are sneaky and doing everything secretly. Provoking others and then report them. I wasn't here for couple of weeks (I barely edit wiki anyway) and when I returned back, I saw that I've been reported as sockpuppet of some other user because they don't like you, if you add something they don't like to the pages. They immidialtely call you SP. I don't understand a user with name history of iran keeps changing Turkish/Turkic pages? and a new user named Krakkos -claims something greek- I'm 100% sure he is iranian as well cuz replacing anything Turkic with iranian. There are numberless sources on Avar page that clearly describes Avars as Altaic/Turkic yet they changed it to unknown origin. So, let me ask you; when they remove refs is ok but why everyone loses their mind when I remove their non academical refs? I added a riddle from Codex Cumanicus to describe meaning of Zengi (an iranian claimed Zengis were iranian as well) and kansas bear removed my statement because it was against supreme iranian ideals. They believe everything in earth is iranian. history of iran added Baghatur, an ancient Turko-Mongol title as iranian and he has no source that they used that title befor the arrival of the Turks. We all know for ages Avars were Turkic people but they change it regularly because they don't like it and people who change these pages are only iranians. The first people in history call themselves 'Turk' Ashina clan is iranian according to them. Funny, no? But it's on Wiki. go check it. So tell me what of my statement was wrong, destruction or iranian part? BöriShad (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.8.45.194

IP address which deletes relevant pictures with no explanation at all, please block. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism

I've been trying to improve the Antifeminism article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread ], and especially Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to add information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.Didaev (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for formal mediation. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be Arbitration Enforcement under the gender-related sanctions under WP:ARBGG. But I suggest that mediation be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith

Please check the edits of User talk:Andyjsmith. He doesn't seem to know what is best for WP. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You would need to provide some specific diff's. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just check all of the shit of mine that he is reverting. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

118.93.90.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Really? Edit warring over categories is near (or already in) WP:LAME territory. The next time you revert him, I will take you to WP:AN/EW. --TL22 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at all the other stuff that he is doing. He doesn't have a clue. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What I see is the OP edit-warring and making personal attacks; and practically begging to be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at all the other stuff that he is doing. He doesn't have a clue. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Name something specific. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• A good example is the spat at Peter Singer. See also my comment on that article's Talk page. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And his edit summary here Andyjsmith (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: When opening a discussions about an editor, you should notify them on their userpage. In this case, I have been kind enough to do so for, you, but it does say in big red letters at the top of the page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Please keep this in mind. Thank you -- Orduin 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards