Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 17 October 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)

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

User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED

I am seeking input from other editors regarding recent actions by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Guy).

A large volume of mostly congenial discussion has taken place at two articles Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy about whether content should be deleted, split, merged, moved, and trimmed. In the past five weeks, there have been at least three RfCs, two move requests and three AfDs for these two articles, resulting in various outcomes. The biggest challenge has been to try to keep the discussions focused so that consensus can be clearly weighed.

I'm bringing this to ANI, not to discuss the content, which will resolve of its own accord. My concern is about JzG's conduct as an admin, his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement.

The following events occurred

1. October 6, 11:10 - JzG closes an RfC
2. October 6, 23:10 - JzG votes in a move discussion
3. October 9, 10:37 - JzG closes an AfD for the spinoff article (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy)
4. October 9, 10:47 - JzG posts a non-neutral message soliciting "cool headed admins" to get involved
5. October 9, 14:18 - JzG opens a poll in which users are asked to select from one of four options to move the Kim Davis biography to. Note, he opened this discussion while the requested move discussion is still running, in an apparent effort to sidestep an developing consensus.

JzG has alternated between his editor role and his admin roles with respect to this content, which raises conflict of interest concerns as summarized in WP:INVOLVED. There was also concern about JzG opening what amounts to an overlapping move request during an ongoing (formal) move request. Both myself and Prhartcom raised these concerns on JzG's tall page . JzG's response was to delete our requests without a response (which violates WP:ADMINACCT). To his credit, JzG did comment on the article talk page here, here, and here, however, it did not address his WP:INVOLVED status.

After seeing that JzG had deleted my first request from his talk page, I tried to engage him again to discuss my concerns about his conduct, only to have the request deleted three minutes later . His comment on my talk page also left me cold.

I have other concerns about JzG's conduct in other topic areas, but those are out of scope for this discussion.

Comments are appreciated. Thank you.- MrX 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus: - MrX 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Stop. The. Drama. MrX has concerns about JzG's conduct, I've had concerns about Mr.X's POV and agenda-pushing conduct at the article and article talk page in question as well as other hot-button issue articles to which he seems to gravitate. Personally, I think JzG (like other editors such as myself) are simply tired of X's penchant for drama, RfC's, opposing viewpoints at the talk page and in deletion discussions, POV pushing, and tendentious editing/discussion style. My suggestion is a boomerang at the most and a trout at the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On that accord, the multiple polls/processes = the drama, and there's several people at fault for that (one maybe more than the rest, but I'm not going to name a name). The idea that there's just one person with an agenda just doesn't square with the history on what I now call a Shenanigans Page. Rampant POV pushing has come from several editors. Stevie is the man! 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And Mr.X has been in the middle of every bit of it adding more drama, more dissension, more, more, more. That's my observation, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems to me your issue is about his particular POV more than his behavior, as again, if you look into the history, you will see several people bringing up the polls/processes over and over again. It's not just Mr. X. Stevie is the man! 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow me to suggest that any complaints about MrX or anyone else be addressed separately, so as not to distract from the matter at hand. I won't violate AGF and call this a deliberate smokescreen, but it has the same effect as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems that even before this admin came along, we have had one poll/process piled on top of another, often repetitive and it had already just about worked my last nerve. Then this admin comes along, and per Mr. X's description, has brought in a virtual dump truck of salt to pour on an open gaping wound. This talk page has become Misplaced Pages's Shenanigans Page, and someone with a big mop needs to go in there and wipe it all out. All of it. Back to Square One. And this admin needs to be told to excuse himself from this and related articles. There's a power trip or something else I can't explain going on, and if I've just violated WP:AGF, I will advise the concentrated sucking of a lemon. I am unable to put my concern in kinder words. Stevie is the man! 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Not seeing an issue with any of those diffs. The last diff that is complained about actually seems like the best way to consolidate the RfM to a solid title as opposed to the mess above it. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-RFC? It's part of the same discussion. It started nothing new. It looks like an attempt to get an actual hard count on the suggestions above to finally settle on a title rather than have endless pontificating. Capeo (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Altogether, as Fyddlestix states, this is shenanigans, albeit the admin's actions were abuses on top of existing abuses. Stevie is the man! 11:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, it may look like that if just glancing at it but, just to let you know: Guy complicated the situation by introducing an article out-of-scope to the discussion that he said we had to consider; the article (Miller v. Davis) that had almost never been mentioned in the discussions and had nothing to do with the formal RM. His attempt to take the process in a new direction was unhelpful to all the work MrX and I had spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Scroll up to the other ANI issue on this page titled "Kim Davis" for my comment to Guy, and read his response, in which he disrespectfully ignores every single point I make; instead of refuting them he simply restates his position. How could an admin behave this way? It doesn't seem possible. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, Kim Davis is notable on her own (including her life, background, and personal life) and her article cannot be disappeared without an AfD. Just a reminder, folks. We don't disappear articles without AfDs or at the least WP:MERGE proposals, but I'm quite sure if the Kim Davis article were to disappear someone would come along and recreate it, and be well within their rights to. The controversy and litigation can be a separate article if needed. Anyway, that's how I see it. RfCs do not determine these things. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Per the RFC on the page from last month, the community consensus is that we have 1 article. Davis has done nothing personally since then not related to the controversy and so still at this point, any article about Davis will be a WP:PSEUDO-biography of a controversy masquerading as something about a person. Claims that there MUST BE YET ANOTHER AFD are completely baseless.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day (ahem), two snow keep's in a row would have been regarded as a sacrosanct "final decision", and this is part of why I've been essentially calling shenanigans. We have two hard decisions to keep as you describe, but some editors refuse to stop re-opening this question via various crafty techniques. Then an admin comes along and essentially puts his thumb down on a position in opposition to the double-snow-keep. This. is. maddening. And should alarm anyone who cares deeply about the Misplaced Pages. Stevie is the man! 00:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that states an AfD can't be overridden by an RfC? Particularly for a merge. Because an RfC is going to get a lot more editors involved than an AfD in most cases. I'm not saying you're wrong but you keep tossing out these rules as though they're some policy that could trump consensus. I ask because merges are done all the time without either an AfD or RfC. Capeo (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, from what I've been seeing these days, for years actually, RfCs usually don't get that much traction, not unless they are about big events (or other big matters) or heavily advertised (for example, via the WP:Village pump). AfDs usually get more attention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would note that this incident discussion is not about discussing what to do with this particular article. That discussion doesn't belong here. This is about a process that has turned into a clusterfudge of shenanigans. It's not just about this admin. That was just the cherry on top. Stevie is the man! 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is in fact just about this admin, per the heading. We seem to have some disagreement as to how to expand the scope of this thread to a point where no consensus is humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK then, in terms of Fyddlestix's question up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" -- Yes, I do think that's a major problem, and a major mess, especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article. So yeah, I think we have a problem and Guy should step away from the article. One or more admins should step in an ensure the Kim Davis article remains intact, and then sort out the two(?) litigation/controversy articles so they get merged into each other, without interfering with the Kim Davis article. And no, I don't think admins should summarily delete (archive) civil and good-faith questions on their talk pages (multiple questions in this case) -- they should definitely respond to them and be open to feedback and discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was extremely clear that there should only be one article. The AFD was extremely clear that the content merited an article. The AfD close was extremely clear that a discussion on where to keep the content was merited. And it is extremely clear that there are a number of editors going to ludicrous extremes to attempt to keep the extremely clear decisions from being implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem in the diffs under "following events" in the OP. What admin action by JzG am I supposed to be seeing? The discussion JzG closed (first diff) is just another argument between those who are familiar with standard procedure and those who like the liberty of writing a BLP regardless of WP:BLP1E. It looks like the "Cool headed admins needed" post by JzG has morphed to #Kim Davis above, but cool-headed admins really are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  John, the Kim Davis article has gone through two AfDs in the past 40 days, and both have closed after lengthy !voting as SNOW Keep and a clear consensus to avoid deleting, merging, or renaming the article. The only way to override that now would be to have a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  What exactly are "cool-headed admins" needed for? Bypassing a consensus? Implementing Jimbo's version of a biography? Quelling an uprising? With the exception of one editor who was topic banned, the discussions have been quite collaborative considering the subject. I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with an admin closing discussions and voting in closely related discussions on the same article. When is it ever acceptable for admins to simply delete requests to explain their actions? Hell, I give IPs, trolls, and spammers better treatment than that. - MrX 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Two replies but no mention of the points I made—no admin action has been identified. This report is based on "conduct as an admin" with a claim of an ADMINACCT problem, yet it appears no admin action has occurred—has a page been deleted? protected? an editor blocked? The ADMINACCT issue is apparently the reversion of two posts at a user's talk page: being disruptive and Your Kim Davis disruption. Hint: if you want to talk about an article, use the article talk page, and if you want to talk to an editor, don't frame it in terms of them being disruptive. Misplaced Pages is open to anyone, so you can do these things if you want, but don't use ANI to whine about your unfounded complaints being archived. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  See where Softlavender sums it up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" ... "especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article". Misplaced Pages is open to everyone, but we also have expectations for how processes work. What we have now is shenanigans that were made a lot worse by this admin. Stevie is the man! 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your vacuous comment ""cool-headed admins" really are needed". Closing RfCs and AfDs are admin actions. Hint: actions that occur under the color of admin authority are admin actions. JzG failed to abide by policy which states in plain English "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." - MrX 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnuniq, you asked what exactly is the admin action we are objecting to. To answer your question: Inappropriate arbiter behavior. Guy pretended to help us as an arbiter but instead of facilitating us, he attempted to take us in a completely different direction. He had a personal motivation to try out a pet idea of his: to combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article. This was an idea that came out of his own head; it was not currently being discussed. That's not what administrators acting as arbiters do. This was no arbiter. Arbiters don't ignore the current formal question, come up with a different scheme, and try to get everyone to follow it instead of the formal question. Yet this is what Guy did. I still can't believe an administrator did this. When I asked him about it, he deleted my question. When I asked him again, bringing up a series of points to him, his response, instead of refuting or accepting each point, was to ignore everything I said and just repeat his scheme to me (see the #Kim Davis section above). His actions are nonconstructive and unhelpful to all the work many of us have spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You appear to have made a single edit at User talk:JzG, namely this comment which has the heading "Your Kim Davis disruption". Was that "When I asked him about it"? Do you often get useful replies after posting a message like that? Re WP:ADMINACCT: My suggestion for the OP would be to read what it says—it starts with "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" (my underline). I still don't see any use of admin tools in regard to this issue—closing an AfD with "Procedural close as merge" did not use admin tools. I will try to not post in this section again because I've said enough—if we engage in back-and-forth it is very unlikely that any new voices will be heard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, fair point about my note on his talk page. I do have a single question for you, as I do actually need to know at this point: We all know administrators use admin tools. I think administrators are also depended upon to act as arbiters in a discussion. Just because this particular administrator behavior did not involve the use of admin tools, does that mean his behavior is excusable? Prhartcom (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that by now yo have made your position entirely clear. I closed an RfC, and you don't like the outcome. You also don't like the fact that I am trying to draw to a close the filibustering of implementation of that consensus. At this point it might be a good idea for you to stop digging. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, as I suspected, you haven't actually read the complaint I laid out for you. For the last time, I agreed with your closure of the RfC, and I agree with your opinion that the Kim Davis article should be an event, not a biography. For the last time, my complaint was the following behavior: You attempted to take the discussion in a direction that almost no one was discussing (combining the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article) and then you voted on your own idea, revealing that you did this for your own personal reasons instead of facilitate our discussion. You were supposed to be acting as an arbiter. Now do you understand? Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do not find Fyddlestix's above summary of the situation to be remotely accurate and I don't think the complaint here has any merit. I will explain why. WP:INVOLVED prohibits the use of administrator privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Closing an RfC is not an admin action and per WP:RFC any uninvolved editor can do it. Closing an AfD is usually an admin action, but this was strictly a procedural close that directly resulted from the RfC he closed. A procedural AfD close is not an admin action, nor is it controversial. It's a technical decision rooted in procedure, not any reading of consensus. So, his AfD close was an extension of his RfC close, and both were the result of him acting as an uninvolved editor, and he did not use his administrative tools in any way. Thus the WP:INVOLVED complaint is invalid. Secondly, is the notion that it was somehow inappropriate for him to close the RfC as he was not "uninvolved". This argument has no leg to stand on. First, he was not involved at the time of closing the RfC, and has not attempted to act as an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator since involving himself in actual discussion. Second, there were two clearly distinct issues here: He closed an RfC that was trying to determine whether to have one or two articles. He involved himself, after the fact, in a different discussion to determine where exactly the single article should be located at. This is not prohibited in any way. Perhaps starting a poll while a move discussion was ongoing was not the most helpful thing he could have done, but rather than attempt to resolve this concern civilly and in good faith, I see accusations of disruptive editing, bias, administrative abuse, flaunting of consensus, causing damage, and "Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus"—for asking Jimmy Wales for his opinion. In my opinion, this all constitutes a series of unfounded and egregious personal attacks, if not outright harassment. The most likely response that is warranted here, if anything, is a swift WP:BOOMERANG. Swarm ♠ 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you saved me saying exactly that. The reason I asked Jimmy should be obvious: I first got to know Jimmy when I was being attacked for trying to fix a biography that was under attack from off-wiki activists, before I was an admin and before WP:BLP even existed. I'm pretty sure I understand WP:BLP, but in edge cases I will often consult Jimmy, not as "Mr Misplaced Pages" but as someone whose judgement on biographical issues I trust more than anyone else's. It's pretty clear that some people don't like the consensus to have one article. By my reading there are two groups who oppose that, one which wishes to attack Davis as a small-minded bigot, and one which believes her to be the Rosa Parks de nos jours. My advice to both is: walk away and leave it to people who care a lot less about it. Turning the whole thing into a battleground is not making them look good.

I started the title discussion because the RM can't come to a conclusion. It's being held in isolation from the fact of existence of two other articles. There's a consensus to merge to one title, the next step is to decide which title, IMO, and "leave it here" vs. "move it to some other title" does not help with the two other articles; all it does is string the agony out for another few months while people argue at those talk pages, giving them a further opportunity to filibuster the merge.

Anyone who has a better idea of how to fix this mess is more than welcome to pitch in, as I said at the time on this board. There are some editors active on this topic who I think could perhaps do with being forcibly separated from it for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You created the mess by opening an overlapping RM discussion. A couple of editors tried to tell you that you were creating a mess, but we you not only ignored them, you deleted their requests! Another admin can close the RM in a couple of days. If there is no consensus, then propose another RM if you like. But stop closing RfCs and AfDs, and stop posting non-neutral requests for admins to get involved in content disputes. You're obviously involved and have expressed a desired outcome. Know your role.- MrX 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Your baseless accusations of egregious personal attacks and harassment, and trite appeal to WP:BOOMERANG are repugnant. You analysis of this situation is flawed. WP:INVOLVED doesn't exclusively pertain to admin tool use, nor did I even mention admin tools. WP:INVOLVED does say "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." The five diffs that I listed show an admin closing an RfC; immediately voting in a move request; closing an AfD; seeking involvement from "cool headed admins" (WP:CANVASSING); and finally, disruptively creating a move request, because the current one was not going his way. In that chronological order. As a user with a non-trivial amount of editing experience and basic observational skills, I find this conduct to fall short of what the community expects of admins. How would this behavior fare in an RfA?

You didn't even bother to address the fact the JzG refused to answer requests to explain his actions, and merely deleted the questions from his talk page. Not only does is show a disregard for WP:EQ, but it plainly violates WP:ADMINACCT. JzG added more chaos to a dispute that was moving toward resolution and he seems to have done it with a specific content outcome in mind. It's great that Jimbo Wales agrees with him, but what makes his opinion any more relevant that that of Stevietheman, Prhartcom, Fyddlestix, Softlavender? Here's the last biography that Jimbo created six years ago.- MrX 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a very simple situation; allow me to restate it: The issue is inappropriate administrator/arbiter behavior (nothing to do with administrator tools). It is fine that Guy began acting as an arbiter for us, to help us organize a complicated discussion. It is even fine that he closed discussions for us; we appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator. I happen to agree with Guy's view that the article should be an event instead of a biography. What isn't fine is when the uninvolved administrator then attempts to take the discussion in a completely different direction, one that had almost never been discussed. He said we need to combine two articles: Kim Davis and Miller v. Davis. This was not the current discussion. Guy complicated the current discussion by introducing a pet scheme of his. What kind of administrator complicates a discussion instead of trying to help simplify it? MrX and I have had hard enough time getting the current editors focused on the formal questions; we don't need an authority figure to sweep away the formal question and try to replace it with one of his own, and certainly not for the administrator's own selfish reasons. Now does everyone understand why MrX and I complained about Guy? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the uninvolved people here have told you that the issue is not inappropriate administrator behaviour, and there is no such concept on Misplaced Pages as "inappropriate arbitor behaviour", your statement is founded on a fundamental error. In fact, as far as I can tell, the real issue is that you don't like the consensus to have a single article and want to re-litigate that debate. That's why you're one of the people I think needs to be forcibly separated from these articles, because I think you have become too emotionally invested in a specific outcome. My suggestion to you is to walk away. It is pretty clear to me by now that, in as much as there is a problem here demanding administrator attention, the problem is you and MrX behaving like angry mastodons. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article. This shows how little you understand me or the fact that we agree on so much otherwise. It looks like you will never admit that you were the one who introduced a complication for your own selfish purposes: the Miller v. Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What "selfish purpose" is this supposed to be? Good grief. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since several uninvolved people here and on the article talk page have pointed out that your conduct was inappropriate on several levels it may be a good idea to actually listen. You might note that Prhartcom and I hold opposing views on how the article should be titled and seem to be far less emotional involved than yourself who went shopping to Jimbo and ANI as soon as it was clear that your choice of outcomes was unlikely. Showing a scintilla of respect for people that you disagree with would also help. - MrX 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate disagreeing with you, Guy, as I noticed we agree on a lot. MrX is right; I wish you would listen and acknowledge instead of just defend and deflect. To answer your question, whatever purpose you had in mind when you introduced that new idea that wasn't being discussed that you had a personal stake in. Anyway, I know you were only trying to help. As a show of good faith, we still need an administrator to close that remaining RM discussion over at the Kim Davis talk page; if you are interested? Or wait a few more days and then close it? Or ask another administrator to close it? Whatever you think. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the dead horse. You have a content dispute that has improperly been raised to the level of ANI through an incorrect attempt to expand INVOLVED way beyond the scope. Being an "arbiter" in a dispute is not an admin action unless you are claiming only admins can act as neutral arbiters and that would be silly.

The only thing I can find to criticize {u|JzG}} for is simply blanking the request to explain things on his talk page. A simple "INVOLVED does not apply here because..." would hopefully have nipped this in the bud. That was his error and I hope he will remember a brief response early on can save pages of drama later. Your error is continuing this thread after several un-involved editors have said that they see nothing wrong. Time to move on. Jbh 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As anyone should be able to see, I have extended an olive branch above. I honestly have a question, though: Don't administrators occasionally help decide difficult discussions? Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do but they do that as editors. Admins are, by definition, experienced and trusted editors but there are likely hundreds of experienced and trusted editors who are not admins who I would trust as arbiters in a sticky content dispute before I would trust some admins. Being a neutral arbiter is not part of the admin "package" and INVOLVED only applies to those actions which can only be performed by admins whether due to technical ability, like blocking or page protection, or by policy, like making decisions at WP:AE. Jbh 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that. I myself often act as an uninvolved arbiter to help others resolve their disputes and I have always wondered if I was out of line for doing so, as I was assuming (incorrectly, you are saying) that the job is normally done by administrators. This explains why Guy said he was there in the capacity of an editor. When he closed discussions for us, ruling/deciphering the consensus, we looked to him as someone who could help us organize some of the chaos that naturally comes from a contentious subject. Then we were disappointed when he actually made the chaos worse; injecting a pet idea of his that wasn't being discussed, almost succeeding in taking the focus away from the formal RM question. I hope this helps explain why we were disappointed in what we felt was "inappropriate" administrator behavior. So, do you think he should not have closed a couple of discussions for us, as he was only there as an editor? Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a judgement call on his part and, as a non-admin, not one I feel comfortable second guessing, particularly without spending more time than I want to to look into the surrounding discussions. Jbh 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• None of the items at the top of this section fall in the category of admin abuse. But maybe JzG needs to be clearer when he's acting an admin and not. It may not be a bad idea for admins to have two IDs, one for admin actions and one as non-admins, to head off this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't open this ANI but I misunderstood Guy's role; I thought he was there to help us get organized after he closed two discussions then came to the third one and asked us for a "show of hands" for a new idea, etc. but I see now that he was acting on the same level as any one of us. He had told us he was there as an editor, but I forgot that when he began behaving as someone with authority. I hope you agree he wasn't really acting like the editor he claimed to be; that's why I asked you that last question. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to opine as I haven't seen the edits you discuss. Mr.X's list was not disturbing. I'm a non-admin, by the way, and proudly so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on whether the conduct in question was admin-related or not (it was partially, because he closed the AfD as an admin), however Jzg/Guy recently wrote above "I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article", which is categorically incorrect, because as I've stated more than once here, the Kim Davis article has gone through two extremely recent AfDs which closed with very clear consensuses NOT to be merged into or with a/the article on the controversy. If there were two articles on the controversy (which there were), one of them should be merged into the other. But there should not be one single article created out of those three existing articles. That was the main problem with Guy's actions, past and current. The Kim Davis article cannot be merged, redirected or deleted without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Misplaced Pages Community which comply with Misplaced Pages's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first ; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.

So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Misplaced Pages. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution :

The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Misplaced Pages, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance for Blueberry Hill

Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.

A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013. Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No Assistance for Blueberry Hill

I happened to look a bit into the Plaza Hotel, one of User:Blueberry Hill's clients, when writing Oak Room (Plaza Hotel). The institution is now a shell and shadow of its former self, being converted largely to condos many of which are always empty (holding unused multi-million dollar condos is normal for Russian, Saudi, etc. billionaires I gather). The storied Oak Room itself had to be shut down because entitled "douchebags" (not my words) were out of control and wrecking the place. These, I think, are useful and cogent facts which ought to be added to added the article to help the reader answer the question "what is this entity".

Is User:Blueberry Hill going to add this material? No of course not. Is he going to suggest these changes on the talk page? No of course not.

My experience is that User:Blueberry Hill is going to elide all these facts. In theory then other editors are going to take time to check the material very thoroughly, take the time not to just to check the refs to ensure that they're accurate but to take the hours or days necessary to extensively research the entity exhaustively to determine if balancing material has been left out -- that we are not lying by omission.

Is this going to happen? Not in my experience it's not. More likely some editor will come along and at most check the refs for accuracy, be like "looks good to me", post it, and Bob's your uncle, for User:Blueberry Hill.

Why this happens is complicated. Here're some reasons: with User:Blueberry Hill, we have to assume bad faith -- nothing personal, User:Blueberry Hill, its just an effect of your profession that of course people are going to look at your statements with skepticism -- but we are very much in the habit of not doing that because of our community commitment to assuming good faith on the part of editors in good standing.

In addition, people here like to be helpful generally: "Sure, I'll post this for you". In addition, there are editors who think it's ridiculous that we don't allow commercial editing and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. There are editors who think rules against commercial editing are unenforceable and it is unfair to punish people who abide by the bright line rule and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. And of course there are libertarians who will post the material for ideological reasons. There's certainly no rule against backrubbing (you post my PR material to which you have no attachment and no COI and I'll do the same for you). So there're a lot of reasons why, sorry, this is a poor solution.

As an alternative, I'd suggest indef blocking User:Blueberry Hill on WP:NOTHERE grounds or whatever other grounds you like. I don't want him here and he doesn't belong here, period. I don't give a damn if he contributes to Mike Napoli or whatever. So do I. The difference is, I'm not corrupt and I don't hack into the Misplaced Pages database to damage it for my own personal financial gain (which is what I consider commercial editing to be). That's a big difference.

You're the admin corps. You're supposed to protect the Misplaced Pages It's simple: get rid of him and people like him whenever, wherever, and however discovered. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus, hopefully the more positive approach is to offer a limited amount of guidance and support to Blueberry Hill, during which they can choose to make the most of it and contribute according to policy, or other remedies can be looked at. Education opportunity and carrots are much better in the long run than brute force and sticks. Lets presume WP:AGF (per Misplaced Pages's policies, and regardless of presumptions of WP:COI or not). As yet, I believe we're waiting upon Blueberry Hill's request for review of their next draft/proposed changes. —Sladen (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan myself, but WP:ROPE would seem to apply. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The last edit from Blueberry Hill (talk · contribs) was on 11 October 2015. The articles involved have been cleaned up by others. Their edit at Plaza Hotel was totally undone, with the edit comment "Nope", and they didn't try again. None of those hotel articles need much attention; they're all historic hotels with their long histories documented in Misplaced Pages. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a need to do anything here. John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid edit warring just short of WP:3RR with very personal application of WP:RS principles

This editor insisted that a paragraph in the lead section of Flat Earth about the myth of the flat Earth had to be removed because the source cited came from an advocacy group, so he removed it once, twice and then a third time. Then they stopped short of a fourth edit, possibly knowing from past incidents that people aren't meant to edit war.

The content problem with their edits was that the article has a whole section about the topic the paragraph he removed discusses, and there is even a separate article about it, both containing many more sources than the single one given in the lead that they considered too biased (let's keep in mind that the lead section doesn't really need references for things profusely cited in the article body).

The reason I am still concerned about the editor's attitude and am reporting it here even though the dispute may (or may not) have settled down is that in the talk page discussion, they insisted about being entitled to edit out content with valid references, just because the references were quoted from URLs belonging to advocacy groups - even though they accepted the very same references when quoted from elsewhere (same text from the same public speech at the very same advocacy group, just, quoted from veritas-ucsb.org instead of asa3.org).

Let me stress again that the paragraph in question really doesn't need references because it's part of the lead section (with good reason) and there is a profusion of references in the relevant section and separate article. At this point I really want to know whether I am to be disagreed with about this view. If not, then I think it's important that Lipsquid understand their edits are not in the encyclopedia's best interest as there seem to have been several potentially similar verging-on-edit-wars incidents.

LjL (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I note this older edit where the editor proclaims in the edit summary that "You can't delete sourced material and those statements" (which isn't correcct, of course, but that's not the point), yet he had no problem deleting multiply-sourced material this time just because of technical reasons, i.e. (I quote) "is not my job to fix the sources of the logically challenged". I find it hard to assume good faith with these plain contradictions. LjL (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all you have to say? Usually people reported on AN/I actually defend themselves from claims made in a report against them. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Defend myself from what? "edit warring just short of WP:3RR"? I wouldn't think I need to defend myself for not breaking a rule. Another editor fixed the source, I thanked them and have not made an edit since. What I am defending against? Lipsquid (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have just said that. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, as it states itself. You have engaged in an edit war, and I'm absolutely concerned with your continuing attitude about it. The other editor didn't "fix the source", he left the source unchanged, and merely gave a different URL to the same source (same text by the same author). You, on the other hand, had removed the whole paragraph three times because you didn't like that particular website. That is concerning. LjL (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A bright-line rule I did not cross. It seems you don't know what bright-line means? Are there any more accusations you would like to make for rules I did not break? Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out that edit warring is prohibited (I quote: " if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"), whether or not you cross the WP:3RR threshold, something you certainly knew. Also, thank you for promptly removing your strange accusation that I was "whining". LjL (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say it was strange. I am sure Admins have something better to do than have people file requests for assistance against people who haven't broken any rules, without first making any dispute resolution attempts themselves. That seems like whining to me. Maybe I should file an ANI against you because I find your indiscriminate use of ANI's when you can't define a rule that was broken troubling and maybe you should be sanctioned.. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another bogus ANI filing by LjL today. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out. While 3rr is a bright line which if you cross usually results in a block, there is nothing to stop admins from assessing that edit warring is occurring and blocking the involved parties. Blocks have been levied on editors even when only 2 reverts have been performed. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This problem is a non-problem. LjL opens ANIs against anything he doesn't like without making any attempt at resolution, as evidenced in my case and as evidenced here which is completely out of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I broke no rules and he likes to make controversy where this is none. He dug up all kinds of other nonsense about things that happened in the past and all were related to one user, Signedzzz, which I am sure administrators are unfortunately all too aware of who Signedzzz is and how he operates. How about a warning to LjL for opening frivolous ANIs without making an attempt at what the rest of us consider normal resolution methods? Lipsquid (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have applied normal resolution methods in the form of an extensive talk page discussion where you didn't seem to indicate understanding that your style of editing was inappropriate, but in fact re-asserted it was "perfect". LjL (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are so great with dispute resolution that is why all your childish ANI requests get closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up without commentary:

It seems LjL thinks he is above WP:HOUNDING After the incident on Flat Earth (which I have avoided and not edited since the filing nor will I be editing), he seems to have magically decided to make his first reverts and move the chaos to & Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is by definition WP:HOUNDING "This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight"..."The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Back off, I have made no reverts to Flat Earth and I have stayed away from any of your edits. Move along.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your quotes is the case here. LjL (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Then prove it by moving along... Lipsquid (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan - Failure to respect RM closure and advice

Although I a loath to bring this to ANI I will not enter into an edit war with User:DrKiernan over this. The article Foreign Affairs was subject to an RM initiated by User:In ictu oculi on 3 Sept. That RM was closed by User:Cuchullain on Oct 1 as No Consensus. User DrKiernan supported the move. On Oct 2, DrKiernan initiated another RM. I closed that RM on Oct 10 as not moved because there was no consensus to do so. DrKiernan initiated a WP:Move review . On Oct 12, DrKiernan unsuccessfully attempted to close the MR after three editors had endorsed my close. . On Oct 12 DrKiernan initiated a new RM in direct contravention to my advice in the previous RM that editors wait six months before initiating another RM. Another editor in the Oct 12 RM suggested a speedy close. I closed the RM with the following comment "Closed per not so subtle suggestion in previous RM - Article is moved protected for 6 months" and subsequently move protected the article for 6 months. I notified DrKiernan on his talk page of my close . Within 3 minutes of my close DrKiernan reverted my close as if it had never occurred showing zero respect for the Admin decision. I have notified editors mentioned here on their talk pages. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made no edits to this article. There's nothing wrong in opening a discussion on a talk page, or bringing new evidence to that talk page to inform the discussion. Move-protection is over-kill; the page has only been moved twice in the last ten years and never by me. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am uninvolved. I closed the RM, as process appeared to have taken place already. Agree with you on the lack of need for move-protection and have reverted to autoconfirmed. -- Samir 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Samir. Mike is right: 3 move requests and a move review in less than two weeks is extreme; we're just not going to come to a consensus that quickly. Revert warring on talk pages is still revert warring; DrKiernan needs to step back and chill, stat. As for the merits of the RMs, wait six months and we'll revisit then, there's no particular rush.--Cúchullain /c 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• At Misplaced Pages talk:Move review#A withdraw that is a biased involved close contrary to the consensus of the discussion I have challenged User:DrKiernan's close of the review discussion. He clearly didn't like the way the review was going, closed it without reference to the discussion, and proceeded to act contrary to the sentiments of the review discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have boldly reclosed the MR with a procedural close which is the common result of a move review in cases like this where the initiator withdraws or another RM or similar discussion is started elsewhere. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• No one has mentioned that Kiernan is an admin and that therefore Move Protect would have been ineffective anyway. It seems clear (to me at least) from the above discussion and my read of the various RM discussions that Mike Cline was acting appropriately, the discussions were assessed correctly by Cúchullain, Samir, and Mike Cline. It looks therefore that the MR discussion is heading for endorsement and that Kiernan acting contrary to the closures is abusing the level of responsible behaviour and/or judgement vested in him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably because no one wanted to point out that move-protecting a page an admin wants to move against consensus makes the line clear where abuse of admin rights kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible tag teaming

I would like some advice as to whether the following counts as tag teaming, and if so how I can establish whether the behaviour is acceptable or not. On five occasions during discussions with User:No More Mr Nice Guy, the same uninvolved editor User:Bad Dryer has entered out of nowhere to revert my revert.

(1) Diffs at Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine:

• 22:21, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:57, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (13,042 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 18:07, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (attribute)

(2) Diffs at Template:Palestinian_territory_development:

• 22:11, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (it has been discussed before, but I don't see consensus for you version.)
• 21:46, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (2,648 bytes) (+554) . . (Undid revision 664591161 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) this has been discussed before. you need consensus for this)
• 17:52, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (removing this map for multiple issues including NPOV and RS, see talk shortly)

(3) Diffs at United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine:

• 22:23, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:56, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (96,712 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 07:38, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (/* United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) */ attribute)

(4) Diffs at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument):

• 22:50, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (80,739 bytes) (+71) . . (/* Transjordan */ attribution is (possibly) needed, but this text hews closer to the source, and is more detailed and accurate.)
• 21:09, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (80,668 bytes) (-97) . . (attributing to Feith, tracking his view more closely, and removing Bentwich statement taken out of context)
• 00:37, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (80,765 bytes) (-4) . . (/* Background and negotiations */ per source. how the source's "there was never any question" changed to "to many observers it seemed" is anyone's guess.)

(5) Diffs at One_Million_Plan:

• 22:56, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (per WP:BRD - wait for consensus before adding this material again)
• 22:27, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (30,402 bytes) (+574) . . (Undid revision 685444238 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) I have read your talk comment. This is impeccably sourced. Your comment is both WP:OR and wrong. See talk shortly.)
• 22:11, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (rv. see talk page shortly)

I am sure there is a good reason, but in my five years editing here I have never seen such coordination.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: None of the 4-5 month old edits of his Oncenawhile mentions above has actually stuck. That in itself should tell you something. And neither will the one he made today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

They all stuck - they were all reverts of edits you had made that were later agreed on talk to be wholly or partially inappropriate. (5) is ongoing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. You snuck the map past me with a misleading edit summary that made me assume you were putting another map in there per the talk page discussion. Good one. I'll be sure not to fall for that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Try looking closer. It is a different map, from an impeccable source, but with the same data, so your well-poisoning was averted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So your edit didn't stick after all. You had to change the article per my concerns, not per your revert. Glad we got that cleared up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. But this tangent might never end if one of us doesn't stop. I hereby allow you the WP:LASTWORD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, User:Bad Dryer was the editor who caused User:Malik Shabazz to retire. (Bad Dryer was for a while blocked as a Nocal100-sock, but then unblocked.) Draw your own conclusions, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There must be some secret cabal. Maybe we can close this and assist them with a cover up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

She was not implying a cabal, she was reminding Malik's friends there's unfinished business here. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile please accept my apology. I had actually misread this while tired. I had actually mistaken that No Mr nice Guy had brought this case against you. Viewing it as such this looked a bit frivolous. As such allow me to strike my sarcastic comments.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• WJBscribe made a comment here not so long ago. Perhaps it's time to give his prophesy some serious consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed contentious page move (again)

User:Film Fan continues to move articles that could potentially controversial moves (ignoring WP:RM#TR). I previously raised this at ANI and he was warned not to do this by admin User:Number 57. This now continues with the page move for Felix and Meira which includes this edit to prevent it being reverted (exactly the thing Number 57 warned him against). Please can this be moved back to the title pre-move (happy for a WP:RM to be logged, if needed).

Recently he moved the article for Point Break only for that to be reverted at a WP:RM raised. FF already has a long block history for edit warring over posters being uploaded and knows the WP:RM process, as this has been pointed out to him several times. I see this as being contined disruptive behaviour. Thanks. Lugnuts 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked a week for this. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editing the redirect is simply inexcusable, and Number 57 wasn't the only admin who warned him against that. I've blocked Film Fan for a week, but I think he might need explicit sanctions. He seems to be practically allergic to collaboration. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because "User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block", but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see and ). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see ).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI . The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:

Moreover, Dentren's diff () shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.

This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor (). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership (,,), POV-editing (,,,), inappropriate use of sources (,), edit warring (), and an inadequate use of the English language ("Chinises"). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page, preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area ).--MarshalN20 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Misplaced Pages has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Misplaced Pages? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. Ed best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that " has been in dispute for seven years" and that " has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" (). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCM_email 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysangers comment

Who are the commentators of this accusation?

• MarshalN20 is an involved editor
• Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
• Dentren is an involved editor
• Cambalachero is an involved editor

Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

Because Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

What about my contribution to Misplaced Pages?

Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

• MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
• Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
• Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
• etc, etc

If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Misplaced Pages.

What can we learn from this "discussion"?

Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

--Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Dmateh

Dmateh (talk · contribs) is a student of Savitribai Phule Pune University who is upset over what he claims are the school's unwritten rules. Several times now he has used the school's Misplaced Pages article to air complaints about these rules . The material was removed by User:JustBerry and myself; we both attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:NPOV to him at User talk:Dmateh#Recent edit to Savitribai Phule Pune University and User talk:Psychonaut#Savitribai Phule Pune University. He does not seem to accept the policies, and in retaliation for our not allowing his unsourced criticisms to stand, he blanked large sections of the article—basically anything that didn't have a <ref> tag nearby, no matter how uncontroversial or trivial to find sources for. I told him that this was disruptive but he seems to have dug his heels in. He's re-added the unsourced content, claiming that it is his "right" to do so.

I don't think any further communication from JustBerry or myself is likely to help. Could someone else please have a word with him, or take whatever action they deem necessary to curb further disruption to the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just posted an edit-warring notice on his user page. His position seems intractable but I'd like to see if he responds to warnings from other users. I hope other editors can watch this article as well to see if this disruption continues or the editor decides to move on to other articles. Liz 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; hopefully he'll get the message. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock? for Mumbai IPs

At a bunch of hip hop music articles there is a person from Mumbai who is engaging in persistent introduction of unreferenced text and wrong information, using multiple IPs. For instance, the IP changed Gold to Platinum for the album Rolling Papers but the source says Gold (page 3 of the results.)

• 59.184.132.22 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.132.67 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.166 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.145.57 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.151.126 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.153.238 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.164.176 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.167.235 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.169.131 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.175.145 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.189.242 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.190.189 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There was some action in August from Special:Contributions/59.183.57.203 but that is outside of the above range which suggests a rangeblock of 59.184.132.1 to 59.184.190.256. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Range 59.184.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). There does not appear to be any serious collateral damage so I am going to lay down a range block for a week. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring WP:V

89.205.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user was blocked in August by User:Laser brain for disruptive edits that seem largely to revolve around changing genres without regard to sources. The person received a level 3 warning in September. When I came upon the same behavior (changing genre to contradict sources) I tried to explain, in case there was a misunderstanding of policy. There's not. The response was to again change genre inconsistent with source. Personally, I'm not really a soldier for the genre wars, but I think WP:V counts. And it doesn't look like this IP is inclined to agree. He's not adding sources or replacing sources. He's just changing content regardless of source.

Bringing it here as it's not really "obvious" vandalism, although it is disruptive. --Moonriddengirl 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the single diff you posted, the IP is correct -- read the citations; the genres are posted on the right of the AllMusic Overview. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I must be missing something, Softlavender. :/ The genre for Guns 'n' Roses, for instance, says "Pop / Rock". The IP changed the genre from "Pop / Rock" to "Hard rock / Heavy metal". --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The IP is using the "Style" info on AllMusic, as opposed to the rather spurious (in my opinion) "Genre" info. But his edit summary was compelling: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only says: "do not use genre sidebar" from AllMusic. Which is probably a good rule to follow, especially in cases of bands that are clearly more (hard) rock than they are "pop". Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that (and said as much to him or her), although s/he seems to have been cherry picking "styles" rather than using all - but I have to wonder why if the issue is the source s/he doesn't replace it with sourced material rather than changing to content that contradicts sources s/he retains. :/ At least that would just be WP:NOR. (I removed the genre field from that table, by the way, per the talk page. It's a chronic problem, people adding unsourced genre information to that stupid list, and if AllMusic isn't reliable for this that means none of the genres were sourced.) --Moonriddengirl 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the band clearly is or is not, whether the source is reliable or not, he's making the article say something different from the source. The bigger problem here, is this IP has been used since July, and seems to get into at least one edit war every week, and never uses discussion except for the occasional edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dealing with genre warriors is frustrating at the best of times and one could make a wiki-career on little else if one was so inclined. I consider blocking only when they are completely outside the bounds of WP:V, engage in edit warring to keep their preferred version, and refuse to discuss—which was (and continues to be) the case with this IP. Edit summaries are not discussions. I would recommend a more lengthy block. --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation from User:Thursby16

User in question never spoke to me and then, suddenly, send me a message: "You're racist" and nothing else. MYS77 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff is here. GAB 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

have you asked them what they're talking about? Rather than throw NPA warnings, it might keep things calm to find out what their beef is. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Asked him yesterday, no replies. MYS77 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your edit summary here on a page he created has something to do with it: I can't say I really understand what you meant, perhaps there is a linguistic barrier between the two of you. I see no issues with your edit, but mentioning prejudice in the summary could have been misinterpreted. Scr★pIron 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That might be it. Looks like a misunderstanding more than anything else. Blackmane (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. But look at the page before my edits came in. It had no sources, almost. What I meant in my edit summary is: "why the people who create these pages (probably an English user - or fan - because the guy plays for an English team) do not look for proper sources", and showing with proof there's plenty of them in Spanish (a different language than English, of course). However, there's still no reason for him to call me a "racist". Everyone who can actually interpret it correctly can see it. I'll drop it, and if he personally attacks me again, then I'll try to "revive" this thread. Thanks everyone for your inputs. MYS77 04:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1 2

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence:

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there , including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past , and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mark Marathon

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: . And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include . I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal The OP doesn't seem interested in pursuing this and the report is stale. I suggest we close this and move about our business.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 31.176

On football articles there is a big issue with a dynamic IP that for a long time has been editing old results to incorrect results (diff), adding teams that has not qualified to tournaments (diff) and other delibirate factual errors (like moving Olympic games from London and Great Britain to Korea diff). This has caused frustration with me and other editors (diff, diff and diff) and I have seen multiple reverts from different users (just look at the contributions and you see the reverts after). The IP adresses I can remember and see on my watchlist after warning them are:

• 31.176.132.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 July)
• 31.176.137.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (1 September)
• 31.176.138.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (8 September)
• 31.176.142.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2 September)
• 31.176.143.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (22 September)
• 31.176.145.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 September)
• 31.176.148.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11-12 August)
• 31.176.150.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (5 August)
• 31.176.152.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 September)
• 31.176.157.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (today, 15 October)
• 31.176.164.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 October)
• 31.176.166.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (10 August)
• 31.176.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11 August)
• 31.176.189.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (30 September)
• 31.176.190.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (31 August)
• 31.176.191.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 October)

There is probably a lot more, so if a rangeblock could be done it would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is a dynamic /17 according to DNS lookups (31.176.128.0/17). I fear there will be too many false positives, though; it's not easy to search older edits here on the English Misplaced Pages, but many of the contributions from the range on other language Wikipedias (which are faster to check) were benign (although the Italian one has dubious football-related edits that might need looking at). --ais523 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is 31.176.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). All the edits from October except for one from this range are football-related. I am laying down a range block for one week. Please make note of the range for future reference. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, it is an /18. That'll teach me to do rangeblock arithmetic in my head… What tool did you use to check the contributions? I tried using the rangecontrib tool on WMF Labs but it took several minutes to load and doesn't show many results. --ais523 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I used this one and changed the start date to 2015-10-01. The range calculator I used is the simple one in my sandbox.-- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of a clean start is not to "respawn" with clean logs to resume whatever arguments you were just in, if you're under DS you shouldn't try it all. And if (this point is a matter of interpretation) you're trying to give the impression you're a random, concerned Wikipedian that just found their way into an ArbCom case, oh and by the way, here's a huge pile of diffs...I'm particularly concerned by that. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. All the evidence suggests the Project would be better off without this user. Alexbrn (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Basketball disruptions

Anonymous editor IP 141.237.78.57 has been repeatedly reverting my changes on Liga Sudamericana de Básquetbol article, as showed here, here and here. I tried to persuade him on his talk page requesting him for a good reason for his reversions or at least try to reach a consensus. What I tried to explain him is that some club names have to be cleared (for example, put the city into brackets) to avoid confusions when there are more than one team with the same name, such as: Estudiantes de La Plata - Estudiantes (LP) and Estudiantes de Olavarría - Estudiantes (O). He has always chose reverting instead duscussing the topic. - Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Daniel Schitine

Daniel Schitine (talk · contribs) ignores my warnings and continues updating Fred (footballer)'s career statistics without updating timestamp. See history. SLBedit (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• You posted comments in edit summaries, not warnings. And considering that you yourself stated that his/her edits were good faith edits, I'm not really sure why you brought this to ANI. Erpert 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Misplaced Pages. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Misplaced Pages. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Misplaced Pages under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?

Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Misplaced Pages under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure I get it. You claim not to "have time to submit to OTRS," but you have time to make multiple posts to ANI? Ravenswing 11:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of edit-warring by Softlavender re: Ruritanian romance

While editing the page Ruritanian romance, I received notice of a deficiency in my edit from user:Ssilvers. I thanked the user, and proceeded to attempt to remove the deficiency.

While doing so, I was referred to the talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin, in which Softlavender broke WP:Civil first by referring to my edits as "mind-numbingly long" to Ssilvers, after which Softlavender and Ssilvers agreed between themselves to dramatically change my edits without consulting me - no attempt to reach consensus.

Softlavender then expressed doubt the subject of my edit (adding Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" to the list of literary settings similar to Ruritania) belonged in the section, saying that additional sources to verify the classification of "Orsinia" as a Ruritarian setting were needed (that weren't imposed on the other two editors in that section).

I tried to resolve these issues. I supplied two additional references which affirmed the point I was making. Meanwhile my edits were changed, again, with no attempt to reach a consensus with me by Softlavender.

The act which seems to have precipitated the templated warning to me in my own talk page not to engage in an edit war (with no private consultation with me beforehand) was my attempt to be conciliatory and remove certain citations as Softlavender requested earlier in the article talk page Talk:Ruritanian_romance.

This provoked a reaction completely at odds with WP:Good faith and WP:DTR in which I was falsely accused of edit-warring - after making a change that Softlavender requested earlier - deleting my own citations because I believed in an earlier post that Softlavender wished me to make those citations in the Ursula LeGuin article.

I am following the procedure set forth in the templated edit warring warning left in my talk page to protest a false accusation by Softlavender in complete contravention of WP:Civil, WP:Good faith, WP:DTR and the guidance to seek consensus before changing another editor's edits. loupgarous (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation is deteriorating. In Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin Softlavender just ordered me not to remove citations in the article which I had placed there originally. My reaction was "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits?" Then I placed the notice which I'd earlier placed on Softlavender's talk page informing Softlavender that Softlavender is the subject of an Administrative Noticeboard/Incident discussion. loupgarous (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, you were attempting to add information that other users think was excessive or flat out unnecessary. After the first or second reversion you should have attempted to open a line of communication to figure out what exactly the issue at hand was and how you could best resolve it. I know you were trying to address the concerns in good faith, but repeatedly re-adding the content without starting discussion was edit warring. You can edit war in good faith. You can edit war with the best intentions. Softlavender did not ask you to remove references you added, you simply misunderstood, so let's just forget about that part. Softlavender did not refer to your edits as "dull", but "long", which is actually a pretty big difference. Had you followed WP:BRD, the situation would not have escalated to the point of warning messages and mild "incivility". Did Softlavender need to template you? Probably not. Was that the best way of going about things? Probably not. Does that warrant admin intervention? Absolutely not. We are all human and we don't intervene over minor instances of incivility. I don't think you are being bullied anyway. You were not behaving appropriately to begin with and that makes other editors frustrated. Bringing this here does not resolve problems, in fact, it just aggravates the animosity. Rather than worrying about Softlavender, why don't you worry about the content and seek out dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 00:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Being "edit-warring" templated on my talk page lent an air of officialdom to Softlavender's accusations. I didn't edit war. Softlavender was uncivil. Softlavender just forbade me to undo an edit I'd made originally - in fact, she reverted my removal of my own citations without consulting me.

I find that hard to reconcile with wikipedia's norms of behavior. Obviously you disagree. loupgarous (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I can see where this is heading. Sorry I wasted everybody's time. Carry on, everyone, the article will get on just fine without my help, and I just learned a little more about wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Vfrickey Please be aware that when you click on the edit button this statement is directly above the editing field "Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." No one is "required" to inform you of any edits that they make. MarnetteD|Talk 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I referred to was Softlavender's complete failure to engage me in discussion toward a consensus. I naively believed wikipedia required that. loupgarous (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, also, I did initiate a discussion. I did introduce sources on the talk page which specifically answered concerns Softlavender raised about my edit, and I repeatedly trimmed my edit to attempt to meet those concerns while keeping the edit reflective of what the source actually said. At one point an edit Softlavender made was at variance with the content of the source cited. I advised the other editors in the talk page discussion that I was changing the edit to make it reflect what the source cited actually said. If that's "edit warring," then every time I've edited an article to conform to the cited source, I've edit-warred. I have no way of knowing whether you read the discussion or not, but it's all there. I repeatedly tried to initiate a discussion toward a consensus, got ignored, patronized, templated, and then finally forbidden to move my own edits as Softlavender requested in the discussion. I didn't misunderstand anything - Softlavender said, clearly, "you can make your citations of the books in the LeGuin article." And, after being templated, I obeyed the injunction in the template to bring the discussion HERE. I have been trying to play by wikipedia's rules this entire time. loupgarous (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is some guidance I'd like an answer to. I made three citations of Ursula LeGuin's books in the Ruritarian romance article. Another editor consolidated these citations into a single reference. Softlavender referred to me in the third person:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article."

I took this as a request to move the Orsinian citations in the Ursula LeGuin article, and in preparation to do so, I deleted them from the Ruritarian_romance article with this explanatory edit summary: "Other Ruritanian settings in fiction: deleted references to LeGuin's publications at Softlavender's request" My intent was conciliatory. Softlavender reverted that edit with the following edit summary: "Undid revision 685936889 by Vfrickey (talk) replaced citations removed with no rationale" It was at this time she sent the "disruptive editing" and "edit warring" templates to my user talk page. I took this to mean she was proceeding with charges I'd edit-warred. I believe that if there was an edit war, both parties took part equally, at every stage of the exchange. I responded:

"Quoting you from earlier in this discussion:

"Note to the other editor: You can name and list all the Orsinia titles in the Ursula LeGuin article. Also, please learn Misplaced Pages mark-up (for things such as italics). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

THAT is the rationale for deleting the citations in question, Softlavender. Your very own request. It was my attempt to be conciliatory and address an issue you raised. As far as the accusations of "disruptive editing" and other abusive behavior, I'll let this discussion and the change log speak for my actions, which were done in good faith. Remember WP:Good faith? loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)"

Softlavender's response was: "I made no request whatsoever to remove any citations from the article. Do not remove citations from this or any other articles. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)" My response: "I made those citations myself. You're seriously forbidding me to change my own edits? loupgarous (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)"

Is Softlavender justified to forbid me to revert my own edits? MarnetteD just told me that every editor agrees to have her edits changed by other editors on clicking the "Save page" button. My citations were combined, very correctly, by another editor into a single reference.

But on Softlavender's accusation I and I alone was edit-warring, can she forbid me to delete citations I'd made in the first place?

I'm not wikilawyering here, and the issue isn't content - it's conduct.

I was going to just walk away from this discussion, given that I fully expected to be piled on and Softlavender's accusations of edit-warring repeated.

However, I want as many other editors as possible to read Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and consider that someone else may treat them in the way I've been treated, and tell me they'd accept (a) a false accusation of disruptive editing and edit-warring to stand unchallenged (b) a discourteous refusal to engage in discussion toward a consensus - Softlavender waited until she'd templated me to address me as anything but "the other editor" and in anything but the third person, and (c) repeated reversion of your edits without that attempt to achieve a consensus we're told to seek. I tried to do that, I troubled to look up those other sources Softlavender told Ssilvers - not me - she'd need to see until she even conceded that Ursula LeGuin's "Orsinia" met the criterion of "being similar to Ruritania."

At this point, the content isn't the issue. It's the conduct, gaming the edit-warring rule to avoid reaching a consensus or even discussion toward a consensus. Until this point I'd been willing to concede Softlavender's good faith, even after she assumed such bad faith on my part (or wished to create that impression) that she sent warning templates to my user talk page... and I took those templates as clear evidence of her intent to make precisely those charges to administrators.

I don't have much of a choice but to come here as each of those templates advises to make a defense against false charges I've edit-warred or edited Ruritanian romance in a disruptive manner. I could be reasonably sure that had I taken Swarm's advice and just forgotten about this or tried to seek dispute resolution that Softlavender's next move would be to bring edit-warring charges against me to administrators.

Read the discussion in Talk:Ruritanian_romance#Ursula_LeGuin and the edit summaries for Ruritanian romance before you decide that I edit warred, or did so without just as an arbitrary reversion of my own edits. Ssilvers was the only user in this discussion to advise me my edits were being reverted and the reason for doing it - and I thanked Ssilvers for the constructive criticism and indicated my intent to locate a secondary source establishing the Ruritarian nature of Orsinia.

I won't ever touch another article of Softlavender's, but neither will I sit meekly while my character and actions are attacked without justification. It's possible I'll be gamed out of Misplaced Pages, but I won't slink away. loupgarous (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

loupgarous (or Vfrickey), Swarm just stated above the problem with your excessive content, and then you write a long complaint like this? At any rate, I really think it's time you drop the stick. Erpert 03:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't victimize yourself any further. I already stated that Softlavender's methods weren't ideal, and I don't blame you for bringing this up here. It's okay. But there's nothing really disruptive here on either side which is why I don't understand why you won't drop this. I can look at the article's history and see that you edit warred—it's okay. We've all done it. It's usually not a big deal, just a side effect of legitimate content disputes. I never denied that you were acting in good faith, but you did edit war. It's okay. You're not going to be punished. But, again, you could have handled the situation better and I think you're ignoring the problem with your own conduct while complaining about a response you partially provoked. I'm not trying to pile onto Softlavender's side because this isn't a battleground. The simple fact of the matter is that they did not do anything to warrant administrator intervention. Disputes happen. Sometimes they get nasty. We're all real people, with real emotions, and we don't punish editors if they get worked up and become a little uncivil. There's really no reason to get so worked up over this. Softlavender has no power over you and they are not trying to harass you. You can continue to work with them, because we're all on the same team. If you find an editor unreasonable, appeal to the others, but there's no need for this. Move on. Please. Swarm ♠ 03:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume that Vfrickey is relatively new here, and so I am sympathetic to some of his/her problems in adding excessive content, using wiki-markup, reference format, etc. But I suggest that, instead of being defensive, Vfrickey read the WP:MOS, use the WP:Cheatsheet. Softlavender's first comment on the Talk page was based on experience concerning article balance and such Misplaced Pages policies as WP:V. That's why I adopted Softlavender's suggestion. When two experienced editors agree on something, it is very likely not arbitrary, so Vfrickey's next action was, indeed, edit-warring. Vfrickey, what you should do, instead, is to go to the Talk page and ask if it would be ok to restore certain content, and then I would have been glad to explain why it was too long and too tangential to the article's topic. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect assumption. This comment is from their user page; "I've edited wikipedia for over eleven years, and nothing, not even wikipedia's own inattention to all the supposed arbitration measures it boasts of will stop me from doing what I do well; which is edit articles for accuracy and concision." I am not sure what is going on here but 'new editor caught up in the arcane machinations of Misplaced Pages' is not, per their own words, it. Jbh 12:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Waking up in the morning, reading this, and

(a) my wikimarkup skills are pretty atrocious. I will definitely, before I edit again, learn the current wikimarkup protocols. And

(b) I apologize sincerely to Softlavender and Ssilvers that they had to "clean up my mess," i.e., replace HTML italics with wikimarkup italics. They shouldn't have had to do that, or

(c) deal with my reverting Ssilvers' change so I could pare it down in my way (which they found to be unacceptable, too). My intent wasn't edit warring, but there are sandboxes for what I was trying and I ought to have used one (perhaps learned from my tomcat and buried my edits in it, then walked away).

(d) I sure apologize to all of you for indulging myself in massive logorrhea last night.

I appreciate your input. You gave me what I asked for, your candid opinions. And you were civil. I've taken your points, and again, thank you all. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors. loupgarous (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

convert imagenames from unicode to ascii

@JzG, MarnetteD, and BlackMane:found images whose filename is in unicode letters, almost impossible to type in ascii-limited keyboards, copypasting difficult in android. requesting admin oversight, are unicode filenames allowed to remain?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC) @GiantSnowman and David Biddulph:pinging more adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No filename is mentioned above, but the user's edit history indicates that they edited a template which uses File:বাংলাদেশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টির পতাকা.svg, the flag of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. That filename translates to "Communist Party of Bangladesh flag". It's on Commons, not English Misplaced Pages, and was uploaded for use on the Bangladeshi wikipedia. So there's nothing wrong here. (Hint: Although a rarely used feature, Android's OS supports both USB and Bluetooth mice, which may help with the cutting and pasting problem.) Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle, JzG, and GiantSnowman:can admins edit filenames uploaded in commons?also, there is one more image in my edit history with non-ascii nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

commons:Commons:File renaming#Which files should not be renamed? says: "Files should NOT be renamed only because the filename is not English and/or is not correctly capitalized. Remember, Commons is a multilingual project, so there's no reason to favor English over other languages." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just asking, only because I don't know, but is there precedent for creating a copy under a more accessible name? --Jayron32 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Copies should never be created. File pages have other information like license and description which should be maintained in one place. It's possible to make file redirects but commons:Help:File redirect#Unwanted use of file redirects says: "Creation of redirects in alternative languages is not wanted. Multi-lingual translations on the file's description page are used instead." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and Jayron32:file uploads in commons where filename is smilies, imagine problemMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, a filename which is all smilies could be renamed "To change from a meaningless or ambiguous name to a name that describes what the image displays" Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is using, but my Android can copy and paste Unicode characters just fine. That is once I figured out how to copy and paste. :P —Farix (t | c) 22:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Banner - AFD Topic ban?

I find consensus against a topic ban, and as several commenters have noted, such cleanup efforts should be commended as long as they are done within policy. Deletionist inclinations towards low-quality articles who look like they could fail WP:GNG are not necessarily a bad thing, although it is understandable that they would cause friction with people who tend towards inclusionism or who work on the targetted articles -- I lean towards inclusionism myself, and have faced similar situations on video game articles I cared for. Misplaced Pages works on consensus and I'm sure we'd all rather see the articles brought up at AfD for discussion rather than unilaterally redirected/merged/PROD'ed; nominating or !voting in an AfD that ends up closed opposite to your thoughts based on eventual consensus is a perfectly normal part of being an editor.

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

G'day - I am creating this to bring to attention the User:The Banner, who has repeatedly over the last year nominated national beauty pageant holders who contest the Miss Universe competition for deletion. There have been at least two dozen nominations on individual pages, some documented here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Pageant_articles_under_attack. The user seems to contest the premise that individuals that who win their national beauty competition and represent their country in Miss Universe are notable.

There was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#Beauty_pageant_contestants that he participated in to discuss it, and while I don't think there was clear consensus, there seemed to be majority agreement that representing your country in one of the major international beauty pageants (including Miss Universe) was sufficient notability for a stub article. Despite this, User:The Banner has continued to individually nominate Miss Universe contestants for deletion (as per above), and another one today Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Adorya_Baly (winner of the Miss British Virgin Islands who will contest Miss Universe for her country). His main argument was refuted in that discussion because he largely discredits any small country as not being inherently notable, and that results in a huge bias based on the size of a country (something we try to avoid).

I would recommend that this user receive a topic ban from nominating these articles for deletion in the future, because I question that these are being done in good faith and, they appear from my view to be disruptive to the area. Core discussions of notability should be decided on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Beauty Pageants or somewhere similar, and I don't think this crusade is constructive. --  R45  15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately if someone fails GNG then an article on them can be nominated for deletion. This tends to favour people from bigger countries due to the larger pool of reliable sources available. As notability is not inherited, an unknown contestent from a small country who has had no press coverage is not notable by wikipedia's policies. Yes this is biased, but its the way the rules work currently. Local consensus on specific wiki-projects does not over-rule the GNG.

Of course there are probably plenty of local sources in their home country, as long as these are reliable there shouldnt be any problem. There is no rule against using foreign sources, as long as they are reliable. They will just be more difficult to find. I would expect the winner of a national country-wide pageant to gain significant press in her home country. But then you come up against BLP1E. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, so participating in a notable event does not make the contestants automatically noteworthy. Due to this, repeatedly articles about pageant contestants are removed, like Tonie Chisholm (now a redirect after several removals and recreations), Paola Nunez Valdez (removed at least three times under several names) and Markélla Konstantínou (removed at least three times under several names). People known from just one event are, conform WP:ONEEVENT, not always considered notable. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I think you're being disingenuous here given that in those AFDs, participation rates were very low in the discussions. Additionally, highlighting 3 examples when you've have over 2 dozen fails means a very small percentage of these articles you're nominated are being removed. My reason for coming here is I think the approach isn't appropriate in light of the objections/disagreements, and it would be better to generally discuss the issue and find consensus rather than trying to individually tackle these articles. Others don't agree with me it appears, but I really scratch my head to think this is actually a constructive way of approach these articles. --  R45  16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Look up what I have nominated for deletion and you will get a non-biased list with a much higher success rate... The Banner talk 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am specifically talking about your nominations of these types of articles, and that's my whole reason for coming here - and hence why I suggested a topic ban, not anything else. --  R45  17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Did you actually look at the list? Or are you only cherry picking? The Banner talk 18:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: Of course I'm cherry picking because I'm was/am raising a specific issue - that's also why I didn't suggest anything more than a topic ban on this specific issue, because you are a constructive person in the AFD space in general. Honestly judging by your block log, you have a history of getting caught up in edit wars and maintaining hard-line stances on specific issues (including a previous ANI about you earlier this year and a similar ANI about you last year), and I think in this specific case, whatever personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That said, based on comments by a couple admins here, others don't agree that a topic ban is warranted so nothing is likely to come of this. --  R45  18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• So you are cherry picking the negative facts while you accuse me of personal beliefs you have are clouding your judgement on the issue. That sounds a bit odd, don't you think? More or less: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But for sure, you won't see me nominate winners of Miss Universe, as they have enough independent sources to establish notability. A lot of other contestants earn most of their notability from other events/work and you won't see me nominate them. I only judge contestants towards WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT (and I know not everybody agrees with me the preliminary round and main round are in fact just one event). And I judge the articles on WP:RS, as a contributory reason. Nothing more, nothing else. The Banner talk 19:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

And WikiProjects do not set the rules for notability. The wider community does that. And certainly WikiProjects can not use WP:AN/I to decide an AfD. The Banner talk 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @The Banner: I am not a member nor a participant of that WikiProject. --  R45  16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't even see this as particularly biased. Even the Miss America pageant is not nearly as big a deal in the United States as it once was, and I can only imagine that in many of the participant countries, Miss Papua New Guinea, for example, the annual winner is not a big deal locally and does not receive the equivalent of front-page newspaper coverage. Here's the thing: if you can't find three examples (in three different publications) of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about a given national pageant winner, then the subject probably does not merit a stand-alone article about her. And by significant coverage, I do not mean one and two-sentence passing mentions, nor do I mean routine coverage such as the one paragraph about the subject in the morning-after-pageant announcement. In the United States, national pageant winners still typically get magazine write-ups and interviews. If you can't find a feature article in the subject's hometown newspaper, and a magazine article or two about the subject, plus some significant national and regional coverage, that tells you something about the particular subject's notability (or lack thereof). We are not a beauty pageant winners' directory, and notability is the standard for inclusion. Oh, and don't forget, for purposes of establishing notability, the sources must be independent: that means coverage from the website and publications of the pageant committee (and its affiliates) do not count for notability purposes.

So, in short, no, The Banner should not be topic-banned. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: your comment is certainly fair, but not directed at the premise why I opened this discussion. In my opinion, The Banner is indiscriminately nominating these articles on principle, not individual merit - hence the reason why such a large volume of these are nominated and continue to fail. If you look at most of these failed nominations, most were made with no effort to research sources - rather a generic reference was left to WP:GNG, largely based on the user's bias/personal belief against these types of articles. If he wasn't an established user, people's perspectives on this may be different. Again, I think there are valid discussions to be had here what notability guidelines should be to help these discussions, but I think some common sense (at least as I see it) is suggesting that these mass and indiscriminate nominations may not be in the best interests in this area. --  R45  17:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How dare he fail to understand that all hotties are inherently notable. In case it was not obvious, pageantcruft is a plague on Misplaced Pages and nuking purported "biographies" that consist of nothing more than tabloids saying "phwooooaar!" is a valuable improvement of the project. Pageants are not under attack, editors who want to write about almost-famous-for-15-minutes hotties are under attack, and rightly so. And frankly I think we should be ashamed as a society that in the 21st Century we still have these cattle-market pageants. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @JzG: The veiled sexism (or anti-sexism) tone in your response was really unnecessary and unprofessional, and not relevant to why I posted. I am not here defending pageants, or even trying to bring a content dispute here. The reason for my post was the manner of his behaviour. Frankly I don't contribute to Beauty Pageant articles much at all, and this post was not about the notability argument per se, but use of the AFD process when so many have of these nominations continue to fail. My opinion is that, in light of the history of lack of consensus on the notability of these national winners / Miss Universe contestants, it would be more constructive to discuss it at the dedicated WikiProject, find consensus and establish a guideline, than deal with these with ad-hoc nominations of individual articles. I was under the impression that's the whole point of having clear guidelines. --  R45  16:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, clearly we can make light of this, but GNG is the standard for inclusion of stand-alone articles. That said, nothing stops the interested editors from creating a list of Miss Universe/World/Planet Earth participants that includes a brief two or three-sentence bio for all of them. That list can then link to the notable participants. Some participants of a given pageant will be notable; some won't. Oh, and at the risk of sounding like a galumphing old sexist, I am all in favor of "hotties," but they still don't get a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article if they're not notable as individuals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I too oppose this proposal. Absolutely worst case scenario, the topic ban would have to be narrowed to just be about pageants or something, as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD. That being said, I don't see any action warranted at all. He's not doing anything wrong, and arguments over what is more important, the GNG or more specific variants of it, (like WP:NSONGS or WP:NBAND) come up frequently, and more often than not, the GNG is the one that's ultimately held in the highest regard, which would leave him in the right in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "as he is generally, from what I've seen, a good contributor to AFD." I suppose you mislaid your glasses. Please have a look at his AfD stats full of red cells, and an accuracy of 59%. A deplorable performance. Kraxler (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said, from what I've seen. One's I had observed recently include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hardlight, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hisashi Suzuki, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Masami Ishikawa. Please don't sass uninvolved third parties, there's no need for that and it won't get you anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently I parsed your statement incorrectly. Anyway, I'm not trying to get anywhere. Kraxler (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It only says that I am not interested in vote-polishing, also known as voting with the crowd as the decision is already loud and clear. The Banner talk 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Sergecross73's observation is even that suprising from a numeric standpoint. If we look at the recent 100 (from 1 June onwards), The Banner !voted the same as the outcome 80.5% of the time, so if Sergecross73's observation is relatively recent, it's somewhat expected. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Sergecross73: My suggestion was strictly an AFD topic ban over beauty pageant contestants, specifically even Miss Universe contestants given that I've counted at least 25 nominations that have failed so far in that area. I was not suggesting anything beyond that. --  R45  16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, you're right. I think I read the subject title and was thinking you were proposing something more broad. My apologies. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a ban on nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion, for slightly different reasons. There is ample evidence that The Banner has an unhealthy obsession with these beauty pageant articles. In the past I have considered bringing this to ANI myself; and I'm not alone in thinking about it (pinging Kraxler). The problem is that The Banner wants these things deleted regardless of whether there are sources are not, and will persist even if sources are provided. This user will not pay attention to WP:BEFORE no matter how many times they are reminded of it. Some background:

• There was an extended discussion of this issue here. All the relevant points are covered in the discussion. Since then, here are a few more that I have been involved in:
• The Banner telling me that counting Google hits is research here
• More Google hit theories on not passing GNG here. A good example of blind nomination: nominating Miss Vietnam on the basis of ghits while not being able to speak Vietnamese to even know what the hits are is obviously a bad idea.
• Interesting discussion about systemic bias on this one. If the debate is at the level of ghits to determine notability a subtlety like systemic bias would be rocket science.

That he doesn't like pageants isn't a valid reason for nominating everything he finds just to see what sticks. We are well past AGF at this point. If this was a new user I would assume WP:CIR over the Google hit thing but this user has been around a long time, and repeatedly spoken to about this, so I'm convinced these nominations are in bad faith.

Last but not least, I support a topic ban so that I don't have to look at any more beauty pageant articles, otherwise I may need to seek medical attention. Vrac (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban- The Banner nominates articles for deletion, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So what? I'm really not seeing any evidence that he's being disruptive in any way. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "so what" is that articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted because no one is around, or doesn't speak the appropriate language, to defend them. This user cannot be trusted to do any kind of good faith effort at BEFORE, and obviously doesn't have the good judgement to leave things alone they have no clue about. I find it extremely disruptive, it is a waste of my time looking at these things. I feel compelled to defend some of the ones in Spanish-speaking countries because I've lived there and know they are notable, and no one else will defend them. This is the problem with IDONTLIKEIT nominations; they are indiscriminate. Vrac (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not see the disruption. You don't like it that sometimes the community reaches consensus to delete these articles in your absence. So what? If you think it's a waste of time commenting on an AfD, don't comment on it and let the community consensus fall where it may. And BEFORE is not mandatory. Never has been, never will be. Reyk _YO! 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much of a defense of the Wiki there. You are obviously free to not care but I think that articles on notable subjects being deleted deserves more than a "so what", even if the articles are about things few people are fond of such as beauty pageants. Vrac (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. If articles that shouldn't be deleted are getting deleted, there is an answer, and that is to define a notability criterion stating that national contestants in Miss Universe, and possibly in the other three international pageants, are considered notable by reason of representing their nation. If "we" don't want such a notability criterion, then "we" can just let the AFDs run their course. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) Based on their AfD Statistics I see about five articles about pageant winners they nominated in the last six months which were closed as Keep while there are dozens which were closed as delete. Those results are a sure indication that what The Banner is doing follows consensus. Non-notable articles are non-notable and nominating them for deletion is a benefit to the project. If the editors who are upset about these nominations want the articles to be kept find sources to show notability. Do not try to topic ban an editor to prevent the articles from being nominated. That is abuse of process. Jbh 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Clarified time frame. Jbh 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: your statistics are selective and not related to the subject I opened. I made a specific reference about national winners that contest the Miss Universe pageant. I would suggest re-reading my first comment and reviewing what was linked (i.e. the two talk discussions). --  R45  17:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are asking for a topic ban on beauty pageant AfD's. I do not see a lot of bad nominations in that category recently. Certainly not enough to be disruptive. You might not like what they are doing but it is not harming the project which really is what must be demonstrated before I will support a topic ban. Consensus about notability is established through AfD or through proposed policy changes at the appropriate Notability noticeboard, not through WikiProjects. Jbh 18:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: Again, please read the original comment (specifically this and the lack of continued discussions) which is the basis of my suggestion that this should be discussed given the history of failed nominations instead of continuing to open new ones. You're certainly entitled to disagree with me whether it's disruptive or not, but your other comments and statistics aren't quite on point with what I posted earlier. --  R45  18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @R45: I did. I see no evidence of disruption. That you are citing year+ old material as a reason to ban really makes me wonder if there might not be something that warrants a BOOMERANG in the history because this ANI complaint shows an unwillingness to drop-the-stick. The topic ban discussion cited by Vrac about Davey2010 above also petered out because there was no evidence of disruption. My suggestion is to close this with a trouting for you for calling for a topic ban with no evidence of disruption. Jbh 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Jbhunley: I think your accusations and tone against me are unfortunate considering I only opened this today, and simply responded to comments within this thread in a civil manner. I came here in good faith believing this is an issue, and brought it here as such thinking it was the most appropriate place. --  R45  19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry you find my comments objectionable, my intention is solely to give you the viewpoint of an editor un-involved with this dispute. You are requesting a topic ban for no current disruption. That, in itself is disruptive. You are challenging every editor who opposed your call for a topic ban and are not taking on board what they are saying. That is disruptive. This conflict has been going on for at least a year with, as far as I can see, the same result - that the AfD nominations are not disruptive. Bring it up again here based on old evidence is refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Continuing this ANI request for days will not change the outcome unless someone presents evidence of current disruptive AfD nominations by The Banner. Do you have such recent evidence?? If not my strong suggestion is that you withdraw this request and save on the drama. That is my two cents. Jbh 19:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from pageant AfDs - this is not about whether one or the other pageant or winner is notable or not. It's about bias The Banner nominates indiscriminately pageant articles for deletion, and always !votes delete on such articles when nominated by someone else, independent of the individual merit of any article. Thus his participation is unnecessary, at best (in the rare case the result is deletion), but mostly disruptive (in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases). Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You better look up what I nominate. The results are not as gloomy as you try to tell the world. The Banner talk 17:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kraxler: I am not seeing "(in case the result is keep, the vast majority of cases)". Am I missing something? I looked at the last six months of their AfD nominations. I do not think any time beyond that is germane to a topic ban discussion. Jbh 17:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at 19 articles that were kept in 2014 (table as of September 2014), and many more, just look at the red cells in The Banner's stats. It's a long-term issue. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That, and I've noticed that the majority of these listed AfDs have the same three or four people voting Keep on all of them, frequently with personal attacks on the nominator. Reyk _YO! 18:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the one who made that list. Trackinfo had to be hammered on his fingers to stop him from harassing me. This list is neutrally sourced and up to date.

But yes, I have noticed that in pageant world are a lot of sock puppets and meat puppets and, unproven yet, suspected paid editors. To make it difficult, there are also genuine editors. I see no effort of you to look at that side of the story, Kraxler! The Banner talk 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So you mean he's posted things up for deletion and they didn't get deleted? OMG! We have to stop this. There's no evidence of any conduct issues but we just can't have people creating AfD's that may fail. We also can't have people riding to wikipedia on unicorns, so thus be warned as the Cabal is watching.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most of these are not notable and to be totally honest I think The Banner's actually clearing a long backlog!, (BTW thanks Jbhunley for the ping although I nearly had a heart attack as thought this was related to me & that near TBAN ). –Davey2010 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to topic ban Timtrent from any more AFDs

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

User:Timtrent has done nothing but post AFD after AFD on articles. Some of these exist in over 30 other wikis and they are all going for speedy keep right now. He needs to be told to stop. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts. 166.176.56.20 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Amusing. My contributions record speaks for itself. I choose not to participate in this. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Articles for deletion are evidence of misconduct?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose- No evidence of disruption has been provided. Disagreeing with someone on AfD is not grounds to get them banned. Reyk _YO! 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose And I believe this is a sock that needs to be put back in the drawer. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

These deletions aren't policy-based. Timtrent should link to specific policies when creating AfDs (WP:BEFORE). clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Clpo13, every AfD I have observed violates this POLICY: ] (Misplaced Pages Alternatives To Deletion) and I wish the ATD POLICY was enforced before AfD's were allowed. Any AfD not following the ATD POLICY should be withdrawn. ATD is a POLICY, not an option or an afterthought. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

seems like this ip is related to in some way. Likely sock.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pound Sterling and N0n3up (talk · contribs)

I do not have the time or the inclination to continually revert the vandalism that this user is inflicting upon the article, or put up with his non-stop personal attacks.

His initial initial edit removed reference that the British debt of 850 million dollars was owed largely to the United States. He claimed that, despite there being a source in the article, that this claim was un-referenced. Repeated requests for N0n3up to address if he accessed the source used have gone unanswered.

References were provided, initially in the edit summary and then on an off-article talkpage (since copied onto the article's talk page) providing evidence that the US was the main holder of British debt following the First World War. Despite this, the same - what I would now like to call vandalism as it included ignoring and misreading sources - vandalism was repeated: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, and this revert from an un-involved 3rd party, who attempted to mediate. As the talk page discussion shows, the sources were all ignored with completely invalid and irrelevant reasons.

Next, N0n3up focused on mis-reading only one of the sources provided to make a series of edits that resulted in this revert, which he subsequently reverted, and after it being taken to the talkpage and barely discussed he once again reverted. Despite being informed that Admin intervention was being sought, he once again reverted the edit: diff. Please note the change in wording over his previous version, despite his edit summary comments.

Finally, his posts are littered with trollish comments aimed at my nationality (Anglo-American). The user has demonstrated little understanding of the subject, combativeness from day one, an unwillingness to engage with the sources, answer questions directed at them, and completely misuse sources. I acknowledge that my own attitute has been far from perfect, yet this needs to end and this user needs to either start reading the sources for what they say (not what he thinks they say) or be banned from editing from this article.

Regards 204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He said at first that my edit was wrong. Then after a long dispute with the IP, I made the change according to source but he now put back an unsupported source that contains unsupported data. I showed him where in the given sources shows the cited part, but he refuses to acknowledge. As seen in the discussion page (N0n3up (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Incorrect, and the diffs show that you are lying. You claimed that the sources were of no use and attempted to discredit them. Then, you made the unsupported assertion that war debt caused the Great Depression. Then, finally, you claim that the 40 per cent figure is unsupported; a quick search (sources provided on the talkpage) highlights that the article is roughly correct.204.116.6.232 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Where in the talk page does it say of the 40%? At first you were right, but now that you continue to edit, I never said that said point lead to the great depression. Indicating that you didn't read or misread my posts. (N0n3up (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

"This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression". At any rate, I'll just note that both of you went ridiculously over WP:3RR (I count 7 reverts by 204.116.6.232 and another 7 by N0n3up). If it were up to me, I know what I'd do. LjL (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

New sock of "Dragonrap2"

Please see Futuristic21 (talk · contribs). Almost certainly a new sock of User:Futurewiki, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Mega256, User:Futurew, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, User:Futurew. Has been blocked immediately in the past. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RS bullshit for an EPISODE GUIDE TO A TV SHOW

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

@GiantSnowman, JzG, PrimeHunter, Dianaa, and David Biddulph:partially created an episode list for The Centurions and submitted it, hoping that others would help complete it. instead it got rejected on grounds of "reliable source". SERIOUSLY!!? a list of episodes now need a RS!!! Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) Requesting admin oversight on this obstructive problem.Mentioning as many admins as i can for attention grabbing.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire list is already in The Centurions (TV series). Your draft is less complete: Draft:List of The Centurions episodes. This isn't an admin issue. Marking as resolved. Samir 05:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect Felix Manalo (film)

Can someone semi-protect Felix Manalo (film)? It has been subject to many edit wars and content disputes. I believe it should be edited only by autoconfirmed users. Pokéfan95 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:NOTHERE editor making spiteful reverts on various articles

SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on multiple articles, namely Microsoft, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Saturn AL-41.

• On Microsoft, he has reverted edits by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) and JzG (talk · contribs), and refuses to accept the talk page WP:CONSENSUS.
• On Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, after I warn him that he should adhere to the Manual of Style at WP:MOS-ZH, he replied that, quote, "I don't need to refer to anything."
• He is being a huge dick on my personal user talkpage. (Per WP:TALK, I have the right to remove comments from my talk page.)

I'd like to request an external third-party to resolve this issue, as they see fit. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Just reviewed SundayRequiem's edits, at the least, he needs a stern talking to by an admin. Benlisquare, I know you feel that you are the aggrieved party, but please try to be polite. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He certainly needs a talking to, but c'mon. Reverting warning templates on your talk page isn't being a "huge dick." It's being clueless. Let's not overhype this to be some manner of epic rampage. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Courtier1978

• Personal attacks and accusations of sock/meatpuppetry: The user has engaged in a recurrent series of personal attacks against me and other users that has exceeded the point of being disturbing and is now discouraging me from contributing.
  • This started on Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus, when he/she was explained that his additions were not properly substantiated by reliable sources and constituted original research: "You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POV". He/she is clearly aware and has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks (as seen below his comment there + previously warned by me, a warning that he removed from his talk page). Following a revert of his additions by User:Alakzi, he wrote "Team work is not permitted by the way, under Misplaced Pages rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you". His personal attacks, along with his persistent refusal of understanding of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and his polarizing (Greek vs. Turkish) tone was at this time so unbearable to me that I just let the article be for months, until Mikrobølgeovn reverted it a few days ago.
  • In the past two days, this has reached intolerable dimensions in a campaign he started across a number of articles: here, he calls me "a massacre denier", says "You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles." Here, he calls a now-inactive user a "totally pro-Turkish user". Mikrobølgeovn, a user who has not engaged in personal attacks and is trying to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies as far as possible from what I see (he has filed a dispute resolution request), has been dismissed by him saying "I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing else". He has written an extensive attack on Mikrobølgeovn here.
  • He/She has even gone so far open a sockpuppet investigation claiming that I and Alakzi are sockpuppets of Mikrobølgeovn! + tried to get me blocked for edit warring when there was clearly no violation, of which he was informed: . I am very, very tired of this.
• A definite lack of understanding WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:RS: His lack of understanding of consensus-building is very apparent on several articles: the aforementioned article on wars in Cyprus where he kept reverting to his edition and refusing intermediate proposals, here and here. He has insisted on using everyculture.com, a website that is by no stretch of imagination reliable, and supported it by a marxists.org link to support his thesis that the Cypriot intercommunal violence ended with a "Greek Cypriot victory" - and his source from everyculture.com does not even properly support his thesis (it says that only about a series of clashes in 1967 and with no substantiation). He has been referred to the relevant policies many times, yet he keeps making comments such as "Lets add some communist sources then, since everything else seems to be Greek nationalists for you". He has also repeatedly removed information supported by VERY reliable sources: in favor of original research. His lack of appreciation of BRD is also evident here.
• On another note, he/she remained inactive after I let the article on wars in Cyprus be as he desired for about two months, and the moment that Mikrobølgeovn reverted him/her, he/she re-emerged: .
• The situation is perhaps best illustrated by the history of this page. He/she has no intention of accepting even this neutral version and keeps reverting to this. This topic is currently open on the dispute resolution noticeboard but this user conduct issue needs to be resolved urgently. The user's activities explicitly display numerous WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability", "Does not engage in consensus building", "Rejects or ignores community input", "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", and honestly WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" (extensive activity against what he perceives as "pro-Turkish" across several articles). On a final note, I hate having to do this, but my previous work has included addition of details about the Armenian Genocide (especially on rape), significant expansion of Assyrian genocide and addition of atrocities against Greek Cypriots to Turkish invasion of Cyprus (e.g. ), all of which are antithetical to "pro-Turkish activities". Sorry for this lengthy text and taking the reader's time. --GGT (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

-GGT that is making another false accusation as usual, has being edit warring the article list of wars involving Cyprus since April, in cooperation with user Mikrobølgeovn that he has being edit warring the article for a whole year now, and he is also cooperates with user Alakzi in reverting edits of other users. This can be shown from their history. GGT in specific is very active in pushing pro-Turkish POV in the highest degree possible in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey. Anyone adding any NPOV version, is seeing his edits deleted, and then accused by them as nationalist and other false accusations, and then they cooperate in pushing him on edit warring, and reporting him to the administrators. This has being going on for a very long time now. You can see this from their history. They have even permanently blocked other users like this, and now they are pushing the highest degree of pro Turkish POV in the articles related, since no one seems to be editing them for the reasons above. Even on this GGT has asked the help of user Mikrobølgeovn, as it shows from the message left in his talk page.

Due to their actions several users adding NPOV versions have being blocked or stopped editing, and now only pro-Turkish users are editing, which has as a result the articles related to Cyprus and Tukrey to have been evolved to the highest degree of pro-Turkish POV possible.

I will give a few examples.

GGT and user Mikrobølgeovn are keep deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side in the article list of wars involving Cyprus for a whole year now and edit warring the article since then.

GGT is edit warring the article Cypriot inter communal violence since April, pushing a totally pro-Turkish POV version and deleting all the rest. User Mikrobølgeovn is helping him. The amount of POV can be seen from the article. For example in the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way and in the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.

GGT is the main one editor for many months now in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Anyone adding anything that he doesn't like, is seeing his edits deleted. The totally pro-Turkish POV nature of the article is obvious for this reason. For example in the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.

Those are just a few of examples on what user GGT is doing. A look in his history and someone can see much more POV pushing in much more articles and much more edit warring and cooperation in edit warring with other users, always in pushing the highest degree possible of pro-Turkish POV that they can, and stop anyone else for editing, using tactics from false accusations to the administrators, to what the rules of Misplaced Pages describe as meat puppetry.

Me from the other hand, it is fair to say that I have being adding only NPOV versions to the articles, adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner and adding what the people of the island have in common as it shows from my history. In addition I have discussed extensively, in the talk pages, and cooperate with other users like that, in adding NPOV versions, in the articles that I am editing, and left other edits after me unchanged. Ron1978 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards