Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 24 January 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

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

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Misplaced Pages articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Misplaced Pages articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Misplaced Pages works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (barbarians) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate, imprecise, confusing, and thus unscientific terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrianism (held by some as monotheistic and thus included among the “religions of the book”); including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism; including or not Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth, and one will never know which set of religions is meant by such terms, although one will always know that whoever is referred by such terms is or was supposed to be exterminated anyway. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to which culture victim of Christian or Islamic physical and cultural genocide the reference is made, whether to those of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the Native Americans, of the Yazidis, of the Greeks, of the Romans, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia dismissed, trivialized, and demonized by Christian propaganda as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing, dehumanizing, blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, specify, and therefore humanize such a wealth of religious traditions together with their followers, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Misplaced Pages. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One extra remark: while the words “pagan” an “paganism” are seldom or never used in relation to ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Sumerians, of the Egyptians, of the Akkadians, of the Harappans, of the Hittites, and so forth, which were not subjected to the episodes of physical and cultural genocide called “Christianization”, these very same terms are systematically used to describe those other polytheistic religions which were subjected to such episodes of genocide, such as those of the Celts, Slavs, Norse, Saxons, Prussians, Balts, Native Americans, and so forth. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the terms “pagan” and “paganism” were created and have served strictly as a war propaganda jargon in support of physical and cultural genocide, not unlike “idolater”, “infidel”, “devil worshipper”, “heathen”, “satanist”, “apostate” etc., variously used by Abrahamic religionists from biblical times (whatever is the fact behind biblical mythology) to the Islamic State in our days. In other words, there are arguably more similarities than differences between the Islamic State terrorist razing Palmyra or decapitating a Yazidi “idolater”, and the Christian-biased Misplaced Pages editor trying to raze even the scientific names for non-Abrahamic religions exterminated by Christianity or trying to decapitate a co-editor just because they have objected to the obsessive, indiscriminate use of such Christian-terrorist jargons as “pagan” and “paganism”. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Misplaced Pages page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Misplaced Pages linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Misplaced Pages is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Misplaced Pages with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, since Jewish tribes are not necessarily implied in my edit, and given the word's many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

When it comes to ignorance of the meaning of words, consulting dictionaries, or just reading in general, makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search for the word “derogatory.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

https://simple.wiktionary.org/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Misplaced Pages editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

However, just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some authoritative quotations from the above links:

“Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Paganism has also been understood by some to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally seen as insulting by adherents of those religions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism

“Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/Paganism#Perception

“Pagan, adjective”

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.”

“Pagan, noun

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.”

https://simple.wiktionary.org/pagan

“Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

“'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one.” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

“...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It ] merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

You might want to elaborate a bit more in depth on your thoughts, and explain exactly why you say that the derogatoriness of a term is irrelevant within a discussion centered on... the derogatoriness of the same term!

Or maybe you want to say that the derogatoriness of the term “pagan” is irrelevant in the context of an article describing the extermination of a people and its religion just because they were, eh... “pagan”, is it?

It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning,

For about two millenia, and always with the same derogatory meaning and purpose, as extensively shown elsewhere in this discussion, to wit, as the foremost war-propaganda enemy-bashing hate-jargon supporting the physical and cultural genocide globally perpetrated against countless non-Christian peoples, called “Christianization”, akin to the 1400 years old parallel physical and cultural genocide waged against non-Muslim peoples known as “Islamization”, both parts and continuation of a wider and older relentless war against humanity, civilization, and religious freedom, known as “Abrahamization”, which started when Hebrews invented the so-called “first Noahide commandment”, which commands and wants binding on all of humanity, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike, full surrender and submission to the Hebrew tribal “god”, the cruel, murderous, genocidal, envious, narcissistic, exclusivistic, monomaniac, mythical creature of a sick imagination, known as “Yahveh”, as represented, of course, by “his” “chosen people”, the Hebrew, thus conveniently elevated by their own supremacistic mythology to the supreme rank among nations, with a little help from their Christian and Muslim ideological vassals.

and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant.

Of course. They will understand exactly what is meant, to wit, “someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen”, a “devil worshipper”, an “idolater”, “someone worth being burned at the stake”, “someone from a worthless culture worth being destroyed and denied”, and so forth.

Jsp722 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here; all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect. You also need to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries and personal attack edit summaries. That said, in the instances I looked at and the instances mentioned above, the replacement of the word pagan with the more accurate specific, neutral, and correct terms has been an improvement. "Pagan" is not, and should never be used as, an antithesis of "Christian" or other 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-millennium religions, monotheistic religions, or Abrahamic religions. Where specificity is available and verifiable, specificity should be used. Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here;

Dear SoftLavender, thank you for your remarks. My usage of the phrase “my humble edits” is just a polite way of saying that I would be happy to listen to diverging opinions, or that I don't expect my edits to by accepted without question.

It is an expression akin to “in my humble opinion”, often initialized by IMHO, and described by Wiktionary as an expression “sed to introduce or qualify a statement, as expressing one's own view, not one backed by external authority or to be accepted without question”, although in case my expressed views are even lavishly supported by external authority, which IMHO makes my usage of the word “humble” very humble indeed.

What makes you construe standard good manners and politeness as “crap” is beyond me, but is probably not my problem either, and therefore I'll let it go.

As to the supposed “condescending attitude” from my side, you might care to specify where did you find it, instead of just irresponsibly machine-gunning your subjective perceptions as though they were some sort of obvious truth.

Finally, as to your compulsive need to start sentences addressing others with the commandeering phrase “You need”, which is hardly a show of collaborative and collegial civility and respect, I'll leave the topic for you to discuss privately with a professional, if so you wish.

all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect.

As the old saying goes, “you teach best what you most need to learn.”

You also need

Did I say it was compulsive?

to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries

I believe that expressions such as “pagan” and “paganism” are indeed politically motivated, and highly so to that effect; a well-documented genocide-supporting, religious-terrorist propaganda slur, to put it mildly, not unlike the “idolater” and “devil-worshiper” name-calling used by Islamic State terrorists in support of their own unspeakable mass-murderings. Besides, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, I wonder why a reference to the slurring-propagandistic nature of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” should be excluded from edit summaries, since they are one among the many important reasons justifying the edit to start with!

and personal attack edit summaries.

Since you have failed to offer any evidence in support of your presumably subjective, impressionistic assessment, may I assume that your accusation is not serious, and therefore can be safely ignored.

Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus.

This has been my main, often repeated point from the very start, as you can see if you just care to read all of my posts on this thread.

However, for some unknown reason, some people, in a somewhat hysterical way, saw my humble objections against the usage of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” as some sort of transcendental-disciplinary-issue-and-existential-threat-against-Misplaced Pages-urgently-necessitating-the-violator's-summary-crucifixion, which in turn necessitated my, er, humble subsequent responses together with explanations on my own views on the topic.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. The central idea, that the word "pagan" is often misused, is probably a valid one. But Jsp722 seems to be more concerned with rubbishing the views of other editors and sneering at their supposed ignorance. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My general feeling is that the discussion about the terms “pagan” and “paganism”, which gave rise to the current thread (please see its title), is for the moment rather exhausted, and reasonably settled, with general agreement on the shortcomings of the terms, which is arguably an asset for Misplaced Pages's future development. Clearly this Administrative noticeboard/Incidents page was not the appropriate place for such discussion, but that is the way it happened. There was some noise at the very end of the thread, by people who gave absolutely no contribution to it, and apparently more interested on provocative jesting, or on venting personal frustrations, than on actually contributing to the settlement of the topic — a settlement which has been reasonably achieved and was the only purpose of the current incident. Jsp722 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There were two points. The first is the substantive one about the use of "pagan" and other words, which I hope we have indeed exhausted. The other is about interactive style, in particular Jsp722's, though a quick riffle through history does suggest that other editors have made some contribution to the problem. The paragraph immediately above is an example of an approach and style thoroughly inappropriate here. (In a college session of friends setting the world to rights it might be far more appropriate, context is key.) Jsp722, would you accept any sort of mentoring? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course! I'm here to learn. (Although your two sentences before the last remain a bit of a mystery to me). Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the word "pagan" as commonly used is inappropriate for a world encyclopedia for the reasons noted. It would be far better to name the religion or culture the word "pagan" was intended to reference. I also agree that Jsp722 needs to learn some manners in order to be more effective at effecting the changes he'd like to see. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be my mentor, as proposed by Richard, if this is feasible. I'm ready to learn about manners, about effectiveness at change, and about just anything else from you, or from anyone else to that effect. Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds much more encouraging. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can have many mentors! From Hebel I'll learn obsessively to wikistalk/wikihound editors for personal motives, to gratuitously mass-disrupt and vandalize their useful edits, and to still have the impudence to report my victim to an ANI page; from IJBall I'll learn to join the chorus frantically asking the summary elimination of disliked editors just for the fun of it; from Iridescent I'll learn to suggest that other editors are “Nazis” in the lack of any other arguments; from Nyttend I'll learn to find fault in the faultless, and bold-facely to pretend that I have never heard that “pagan” is a derogatory word; from SoftLavender I'll learn to start every sentence addressed to another editor with a domineering “You need to”, the joylessness to dismiss even standard collegial politeness as “crap”, and the exhilarating pleasure to be found in controlling and punishing; and from Martinevans I'll learn to refer to myself as “we”, and how to spend my night making witty remarks without falling asleep! Jsp722 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job it's not a case of "us and them". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you come again with your “us” thing... But I have to agree, this is indeed a case where Pagan is wonderful! Jsp722 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not quite so encouraged by Rklawton's mentorship, admin or no admin. Given the advice offered here, I don't feel that Rklawton is paying correct attention to the content of the article he has suggested has some form of 'redundant' information about who followed what religion. Given that the subject of the article (being Sviatoslav I of Kiev) is someone we don't know very much about, the length of the section on religious affiliations, and the context of a changing European politico-religious landscape, and the lack of any positive or negative connotations as to religious choices outside of an alliance-based predisposition, suggesting that any references to religion are redundant seems more like a WP:BADIDEA than a desire to improve the content of the article. Perhaps I have misunderstood Rklawton's reading of the article and he could enlighten me as to why "It's amazing to me that someone would link a person's religion to a generic article that essentially proves your assertion that its use is POV.". How is the article 'generic'? How is Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology a gratuitous use of mentions of his religion as opposed to that adopted by his mother and other political figures around him? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have gone way too far discussing content on an ANI page. It is irrelevant here whether or not “in the context of changing European politico-religious landscape” or “outside of an alliance-based predisposition” it is a “WP:BADIDEA” to discuss “Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology”, let alone the “religion adopted by his mother”. Not only irrelevant, but preposterous. Please ladies and gentlemen, cast your votes below, so that we can put an end to this farce, and so that those willing seriously to collaborate can work. Thanks! Jsp722 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: in your rebuttals above, you've linked twice to simple wikt, but not to ordinary wikt where the primary defintioins are in no way pejoratuve? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer: For whatever reason, the editor of the simplewiki used “derogatory”, whereas the editor of the ordinary wiki used “pejorative”, in both cases to define“pagan”. Therefore, “pejorative”, which is about the same as “derogatory”, is found on the ordinary wiki at least 4 times, as quoted below:

• “2. (by extension, pejorative) Savage, immoral, uncivilized, wild.”
• “(civilisation): barbarian, barbaric (pejorative).”
• “2. (by extension, pejorative, politically incorrect) An uncivilized or unsocialized person.”
• “3. (pejorative, politically incorrect) Especially an unruly, badly educated child.”
• Also, on the ordinary wiki, the word “pagan” appears precisely because it is an entry on the list of English pejoratives”.

As you can see, “pagan”, itself a demonized word, is used as a particularly perverse way of demonizing even “misbehaving” children; demon (Anc. Grk. “daimon”) itself being a satanized word; “Satan” (Hbr. “adversary”) itself being a devilized word; “Devil” (Sanskr. “deva”, “god”, “luminous being”) itself being an evilized word, and so forth.

The idea here is to make out of whoever does not toe the line of the Abrahamic “god” the very definition of “evil”, “evil” itself being defined in Abrahamic religions not as murdering and so forth, bit as opposing a murdering “god”. Jsp722 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But those definitions are not the primary ones, are they. As you rightly point out, Jsp722, they are (2), (2) and (3) respectively. That doesn't make "pagan" necessarily a "demonized word." It depends on the context as to which meaning is intended, and thus whether or not it's inappropriate. I think that's why many people may see your crusade against use of this word as misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less like “shit”. Definition #1 is just feaces/feces, perfectly neutral; definition #2 is derogatory. The same applies to “ass”, and any number of slurs you can imagine. The devil is in definition #2. Besides, as already noted elsewhere, not only the word's overtones are derogatory, but its origin as well; it is a word meant from the start to be derogatory which became a name for those derogated. Therefore, in this case, the devil is in definition #1 as well. But, may I insist, this is a topic to be discussed on specific talkpages, maybe one day even on dispute resolution pages, but not here. Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's just your interpretation. Insist all you like, but this is a general discussion based on the overall pattern of your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was suspecting this; please don't tell anyone, and just pretend that we don't know anything. Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m not “just pretending that you don't know anything”. I’m suggesting that your comparison of the word “pagan” with the word “shit” is not a very good one. I’d say that “shit” is used more often than not in a derogatory way. It’s frequently used as an expletive, for example, which pagan never is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You managed to miss your own point, which is that the derogation is most often in meaning #2, just this. And being an expletive is not a requirement for being derogatory, although calling a “misbehaving” child “pagan” is surely an expletive. Jsp722 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m aware that words can have more than one meaning. And yes, meanings can sometimes be unclear, or can partly merge. But in this case, whereas I see a word with two separate meanings, you seem to see a word that has always carries a mixture of all possible meanings. I certainly didn’t say that being an expletive is a requirement for being derogatory. Calling a misbehaving child a “pagan” might be an insult, it might be bigotry, but it is certainly not “an expletive”. Additionally, I don’t think that the origin of a word has any significant place in its meaning in everyday use. Most people will use the word “pagan” without any knowledge at all of its etymology. I’m pretty sure that’s true for most words used by most speakers of modern English. So I think your overly-prescriptive approach is based on quite false premises there. Should we ban the word “influenza” because it had its origins in medieval astrology? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not like “shit”. A word can only be disparaged as “derogatory” or as a "slur" when it is clearly and according to most and many sources, generally in such use. However, the word “pagan” is still used to describe something, even in fairly recent scholarly works about the subject. Your personal opinion about that word is therefore just that, when it comes to it’s use here on Misplaced Pages. That may change of course but that is not up to us as editors here. Maybe it’s not the most fortunate of words, but we can say that about some other words that are in general use as well. And for the time being it is in general use. Your offense may very well be, as derived from your above comments, just your personal opinion about the matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many slurs are embedded in language and in people's thoughts, deformed as they often are by millenia-old massive slurring propaganda and bestial beliefs transvestite as “religion” (no offence intended to beasts, please) most people hardly even perceive that they are slurring, a fact well described by the Microaggression Theory;
• recency, laziness, carelessnes, and even claimed unawareness do not make a slur less of a slur, and unawareness is hardly a distinction for scholars;
• your views about the sacred mission of Misplaced Pages editors as perpetrators and perpetuators of slurs is fascinating, but hardlly fit a disciplinary page; and
• your noble view about the slur being the fault of the slurred brings tears to the eyes, and surely the world will be a better place when more people think like you!

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're now telling us that "many slurs are embedded ... in people's thoughts"? Yes, I think a discussion about such things probably belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the end, everything boils down to thought and language, I think. I don't know where you think this discussion belongs, but I see its placement on a disciplinary page is a tragicomic excrescence in Misplaced Pages. Jsp722 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself. I have also put this comment as a comment in the section below which may not have been the right place to write it. I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing has led a number of other editors to think that a general discussion on the use of those words might be more efficient than leaving discussion "to the talkpages of each specific article". You seem to think that those words have no proper place in this encyclopedia at all? Where would a general discussion be best placed? At WP:DR perhaps? But then there are also editors who think your approach to editing itself warrants some kind of sanction. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely words such as “pagan” and “paganism” have a proper place in Misplaced Pages, for instance on Lists of pejorative terms for people. Otherwise such usage of words should be checked at each specific occurrence, in order to ascertain the best replacement. Since “pagan” and “paganism” are just generic, blanket, and on top of it indefinite words, and this another of their essential shortcomings, each occurrence may require a different replacement and rephrasing. There are many partially or entirely distinct religions and sets of religions indiscriminately labeled as “paganism”, and thus no room for a simplistic “one size fits all” here.

As to the best place for discussing the issue, while I believe it should be each article's specific talkpage or, in case of need, a dispute resolution page, but never a disciplinary page, others may indeed think otherwise. Since I am no administrator, this is actually not my problem; I just discuss the topic with whoever might be interested on it, wherever it is decided by administrators.

The unasked question, however, is whether or not this topic, rather than my “pattern of editing” is a disciplinary issue warranting some kind of sanction. Probably those favorable to the indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism” will tend to see any scrutiny as a disciplinary issue, while those favorable to scrutiny will tend to see the topic as something to be freely discussed on talkpages, and anyway no good reason for any kind of disciplinary action.

In general, however, I believe that treating any debatable topic as a disciplinary issue is an unhealthy sign for Misplaced Pages, but my contribution cannot go beyond just offering this remark.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2016 (U TC)

I don't see anyone here advocating "indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism”". And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever would deliberately have such an agenda. I would suspect that misuse of those words, if that misuse can indeed be agreed by consensus, will probably have grown up incrementally and unnoticed over many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The very usage of the Christian slurs “pagan” and “paganism”, as already extensively shown and largely agreed upon, is itself indiscriminate by nature, which is by the way the very nature of slurs in general, specially of those intended to support genocides, such as those perpetrated by Christianity.

It would be very difficult to perpetrate relentless genocides against countless peoples and cultures throughout two millenia without an agenda. Surely a Ku Klux Klan member has an agenda when they call people perceived as dark-skinned “niggers”.

The bestiality of a behavior is often unnoticed, specially by perpetrators. Islamic State fanatics decapitating, drowning, burying, and burning alive a “kafir” (“disbeliever”, the Muslim word for “pagan”) probably do not realize the bestiality of their own behavior: rather, they think it is pure behavior recommended by their scriptures (which happens to be exactly the case).

The Christian usage of the terms “pagan” and “paganism” are in every respect similar and paralell to the Muslim usage of terms such as “kafir” and “shirk”; they are the derogatory epithets given to “disbelievers”, in order to justify their physical and cultural elimination. And it is not less so just because it is “unnoticed” by some, or because the usage grew up incrementally over many years.

Another similar word is “apostate”, which was for centuries used by Christian hate-propagandizers, for instance, to name in a derogatory way the Roman emperor Julian, which they called “Julian the Apostate”. After a long and heated debated, folks decided that 1700 years of slur were not enough to justify the continuation of such despicable usage on Misplaced Pages, and moved the page from “Julian the Apostate” to “Julian (emperor)”, and the world did not come to an end.

By the way, that fruitful debate happened in a civilized way, without any threat of disciplinary action against anyone, although it changed such a millenia-old usage. The same should apply to the current discussion about “pagan” and “paganism”, no matter how many pages might be potentially affected by refreshing views on the topic.

Indeed, on each page someone may raise objections, and these objections will have to be discussed, and if there is no agreement there will be a dispute resolution by a neutral party. And there are 1.150.000 Google results for the search “Misplaced Pages pagan”, plus 450.000 results for the search “Misplaced Pages paganism”.

Therefore, phobic reactions and accusations that my “modus operandi” is somehow disruptive make no sense at all, specially because my 5 or so edits (please check and correct if you have time) have all been largely found to be good and praised as better than the original “pagan” or “paganism”, even by experienced and learned editors, on this very page.

Therefore, dear Martinevans123, please cast your vote so that this ridiculous disciplinary incident, regretted even by its very initiator, comes to its deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You say this discussion "doesn't belong here", but then add another huge wall of your own carefully constructed argument. I see we've now moved on to "niggers". And you've made just "5 or so edits"? I'm sure closure of this thread does not depend in any way on my !voting, dear Jsp722. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not me deciding where this discussion takes place. Never heard that giving an example means “moving” to another topic. Twenty-seven edits on the pagan thing since 2009, according to last count, as detailed below. Of course it depends on you, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be collaborative. Jsp722 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on this place seems to have been inadvertently deleted by this edit I'm going to resore it here again. Sorry if there was any mistake. As far as I can see the word “pagan” is descriptive of some religions or religious practices we know of or know very little about in a historical sense. And it has been and is still used widely to describe that phenomenon or set of phenomena. Of course it has also been used in a negative sense, but I (and many others that still try to use in a purely descriptive sense) don’t think the word should be disparaged just for that. The word “Deva”, the Indian word for “God” may very well be the origin of the word “Devil” (and it wasn't an Abrahamic religion that made it so) but it is also a cognate of “Dieux” (French) and “Deity” (English). Revivalists of pre Christian religions call themselves Neopaganist! What I mean to say is that if a multitude of sources show that a word is clearly objectionable, we, here on Misplaced Pages, would seriously have to consider that. On the other hand we are dealing here with a word that, for now, is in general use to describe a particular phenomenon. We don’t get to judge that. Others might do so in the future, but that is not the task of an editor in Misplaced Pages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any inadvertent indeed deletion; now I'm afraid of reverting it and making things even more complicate, so I leave as it is. Now short answers, so that people may concentrate on all-important disciplinary issues without losing their time with unimportant content issues.

• The argument of “knowing little” about “paganism” is hardly a justification for the naming.
• Looks like Abrahamic religions have lots of Iranian roots, including the demonized “deva” thing, plus ressurrection, final judgment, militancy, and so forth.
• As words clearly show, “Dieu” is actually the “Devil”!
• Revivalist introjection of slurs is hardly an argument, specially because such a folk as Sviatoslav I was hardly a revivalist; please note that American Blacks proudly call themselves “Niggas”, adapted from the racist, derogatory ”Niggers”.
• Finally, your whole case for defining Misplaced Pages as a tool for perpetrating and perpetuating slur, while interesting, can be appreciated in other places, hardly on this ANI page.

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness (including this latest salvo ) are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting and personal attacking going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks like a content dispute, unnecessarily brought to teh drama boards, in which the content issue has largely been resolved in favor of Jsp722's position. Good faith editing and failure to properly grovel in the face of the almighty power of the admins are not good reasons for any kind of disciplinary action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons above. Jsp722 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Just for your information, the issue is already well-resolved for quite a while, thanks to the active contribution of many users, while your only contribution has been your persistent, disruptive bid to make a tempest in a teapot, demanding disciplinary measures on the basis of trifling issues, such as me referring to my own edits as “my humble edits”. Jsp722 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment it is not normally allowed for !votes from subjects of proposed bans, when the !vote is about them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment If so, the one proposing the ban should not be able to vote either, as the vote is about their proposal Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it works over here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So be it. Everyday we learn something new. Still, giving double weight to accusation and zero weight to defense sounds a bit unbalanced, if I'm allowed to say so.

Besides, apart from medieval, inquisitorial judgments (and any deliberation, even consensual, is a judgment), the accuser should never judge, to start with because of their natural bias in favor of their own accusation.

The name “Inquipedia” has already been suggested on this thread to fit such medieval standards.

And, as you can see, love for the genocidal slur “pagan” and love for inquisitorial behavior seem to go always, and once again, hand in hand!

Jsp722 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion would sit far more comfortably at DR. _Fortuna 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A topic ban is necessary when an editor refuses to budge on one particular issue. Jsp has shown a willingness to learn and has accepted at least one mentor. Misplaced Pages has several noted "single issue" editors who have helped Misplaced Pages move forward, and I'm confident that Jsp can successfully join their ranks. And, of course, Jsp has raised an excellent point about the use of the word Pagan in our articles. Many of our articles would be much better served if we could specify a subject's religion with reliable sources rather than label it with a term that could mean almost anything. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• His response seemed to cast the meaning of the term "mentor" in a new light?Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not new. Learning what not to do from the mistakes of others is surely a very old idea. Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is not the style of mentoring that Rklawton had in mind. That's not to say that many people, myself included, don't come to this page to try and learn from the mistakes of others. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably I misunderstood what you meant; sometimes you are a bit esoteric. Anyway, if you are interested on more details on the style of mentoring implemented by Rklawton, you are welcome on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave Eric out of this, shall we. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban. Now it seems to be that their modus operandi is to go to every article where "pagan" appears (presumably excluding the article Paganism) and replace it with other words to that effect. The problem with this approach is that article descriptions of religions should be based on reliable sources, not POV pushing as to the suitability of the word. From the above walls of text I feel it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on these issues. Also, I simply don't believe in the real world that "pagan" is particularly pejorative, with organizations such as the Pagan Federation proud to use the term. Therefore I would support this restriction. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search, there are 1.150.000 occurrences of “Misplaced Pages + pagan”, plus 454.000 of “Misplaced Pages + paganism”. I have edited some 5 instances (you may go through my history and correct the number), all of them with detailed edit summaries. When my changes were opposed, I did not engage in any edit wars, rather waiting for the opportunity to engage in discussions on talkpages. All of my changes have been scrutinized on this thread and found to be good, despite some criticism to my edit summaries, which I have accepted. Therefore your attitude seems to be a bit exaggerated and alarmist, and actually tending dogmatically to impose wording to wikipedia without allowing for the possibility of discussion, which adds to the weakness of your argument in support of it, since, after all, people like Sviatoslav I were not “neopagans” anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you've slowed down it may be due to this active thread. But it is clear from your above comments that you consider "pagan" a pejorative word, which you would like to see expunged from Misplaced Pages. I disagree with both of these points. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Which means that you want to impose a disciplinary sanction just because of a content disagreement. Like sending Galileo to burn at the the stake just because the Earth was flat. Congratulations. Maybe we rename Misplaced Pages to Inquipedia! Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, it seems that Galileo and his mates were all pagans. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe just “tendentious”. Jsp722 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Jsp722 has useful contributions to make, but is making them in a way that disrupts the encyclopaedic project. I would suggest mentorship on discussion style, if Jsp722 will accept it, first. Would Rklawton be willing to lead this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From my side already gladly accepted; from Rklawton's side he is willing to lead and already effectively leading, as one can be see on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask if Rklawton has the time and inclination to take this on formally? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Richard, following your suggestion, I have accepted Rklawton's “mentorship” in an informal way, because I have learned to appreciate his human qualities, knowledge, and skills. I see him, as I could see others, rather as a beneficial friend capable of helping making my contributions better. However, I'm not at all interested on accepting any “formal mentoring”, or anything which might restrict my legitimate freedom as an editor. If this means that you will vote for my ban, please vote for it by all means.

Me and other users such as David Eppstein and _Fortuna obviously have different opinions from yours about what does it mean to be “disruptive” and what should be or not treated as a disciplinary issue, and anyway I am vastly used not to be on the “winning” side. Misplaced Pages has countless other topics of my interest, and even if I am banned from editing all of them I still enjoy the good fortune of having plenty of rewarding activities in life. Therefore, please cast your vote so that this tragicomic incident, which should never have started, and which was regretted with perplexity by its very own initiator, comes to its well-deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed to help mentor Jsp with the caveats he has noted above. This is not a "formal" relationship - just a collegial one between two editors who wish to see Misplaced Pages continually improved. Rklawton (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I suppose my main criteria for success would be for Jsp722 to discuss in a style that doesn't needlessly irritate people who tend to agree with his substantive points, and doesn't needlessly distract people who tend to disagree with them. Softlavender, would you think this a good point to close this thread, or are any further actions required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per the reasoning of User:Mrjulesd. A cooling off period on the topic would be a good idea, so the contributor can practice his interaction in less confrontational areas. --Jahaza (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If I were mentoring (I'm not volunteering) I'd probably suggest some sort of cooling off period. But I'd be happy to leave that to a voluntary arrangement with an experienced editor such as Rklawton. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Softlavender. Having seen this issue from both sides, and seen the extent to which Jsp722 seems prone to disregard WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and similar guidelines, that time might allow Jsp722 to gain needed perspective on the issues leading to tendentious editing regarding the word pagan. A word to Jsp722: please consider taking some time to study the pagan communities who embrace the term to describe themselves. Dar Williams' excellent "The Pagans and the Christians" on YouTube might help desensitize you to the word 'pagan,' and convince you that it is far from always pejorative. And please take advantage of the offers of help from more experienced editors here. loupgarous (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”! I'm sure the same happens in Saudi Arabia or in al-Raqqa when someone questions equivalent slurs such as “kafir” or “shirk”. American Blacks embraced the slurring “nigger” as “nigga”, but “nigger” is not the less slurring. Besides, Sviatoslav I of Kiev or Christian-massacred South-American Inca or Quichua people were hardly “Neopagans”, and should hardly be described according to “neopagan” fashion. While a word does not have to be “always” pejorative in order to be a slur, the fact remains that the “pagan” word was born and has consistently been used for almost two millenia as the main Christian religious slur to justify physical and cultural genocide, to which you appear to be rather desensitized. Furthermore, the “pagan” word says nothing, as it is just a negation, an indefinite generality, a fuzzy word for “non-Christian” (and many other possible negations, as already extensively discussed above, which just adds to the uselesness of the word), and which says nothing about what is supposed to be described. Jsp722 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Jsp722 is now showing 'red'. Is this an indication that the user's retired his username permanently or deleted it? loupgarous (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No it does not mean that. From the looks of it, User:Jsp722 should have always been red. Since they have never created a userpage the link to their userpage shows up red. -- GB fan 10:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, after wading through numerous walls of text, I've come to the opinion of weak support. Jsp722 believes "pagan" to be pejorative. I don't think it is important whether it is or is not, but Jsp722's belief is important. The usage of the word "pagan" can be, and has been vague in some very clear cases (like "Norse religion") and some where reasonable minds can disagree (like "followers of traditional religions" here). Making the encyclopedia more accurate is a good thing. However, it seems that Jsp722 is engaging in this editing to get rid of the pejorative word without regard for whether the instance of its inclusion is reasonable or not (see the edit summaries in particular: ). Further, and probably more concerning it seems that Jsp722's editing style is a little less than civil as SoftLavander has pointed out . While I respect that resonable minds can disagree on whether the edits are an improvement in specific instances, and single purpose accounts can be helpful, I think on balance, Jsp722's pattern of editing is causing more disruption than improvement, and a break from topics in the subject and mentoring on how to edit in less heated areas would benefit them when they are able to return after a few weeks time. I think 6 months might be too much, but I don't have a particular alternative. Wugapodes (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To briefly clarify, my reasoning is not simply in response to the removal of "pagan" but Jsp722's larger pattern of tendentious editing. While those few edits relating to "pagan" which they enumerated below wouldn't cause me too much pause alone, they are part of a pattern that seems to show me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia but to righting great wrongs. A pattern that is not recent but has extended back to 2010: paganism-related in 2010 paganism related in 2010 paganism related in 2011 something about whitewashing in 2011 changing of Burma to Myanmar. A number of these edits were helpful and improvements, but as I said above, the way in which Jsp722 goes about them is tendentious and causing disruption. As such, I still support a temporary topic ban, not because of the specific recent removal of pagan but because of the larger pattern of editing. Wugapodes (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, let's change the proposal, from ”temporary topic ban” to “permanent user ban”. I can improve my “civility”, I can offer smoother edit summaries, I can be less rude and sneering, I can refrain from personal attacks, I can gladly accept mentorship, I can learn and abide by Misplaced Pages rules, I can do or make an effort to do nearly everything I've been recommended to by both sympathetic and unsympathetic editors. What I cannot, however, is change what you call my “pattern of editing”. As already remarked elsewhere, I am the avid reader, and the occasional editor. I read out of curiosity about the topic, but if I find something which I believe to be unfitting, I contribute an alternative, with a justification. If it is not accepted, so be it; I have never entered edit wars. Most of my edits have been accepted, some thanked, even praised; after 1700 years, for instance, the Roman emperor Julian is not anymore the “Apostate”, and so on. This is my way of collaborating; if this does not fit Misplaced Pages, please kick me out by all means. Now to say that I am “tendentious” just because I changed the colonial name of a country for its actual, legal, official name; or because I stated that a person, not a company, offers bribes; or because I replace hyper-tendentious slur “pagan” with neutral “follower of traditional Slavic, German, Semitic, Greek, or Quichua religion” is beyond me. Maybe I'm just in the wrong place! Jsp722 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly. I said "pattern of tendentious editing". You seem to be missing my point that yes, in isolation, all of these actions would seem to be perfectly fine, it is them together with your edit summaries and agenda that raise them from a normal "pattern of editing" to a pattern of tendentious editing. In response to an editor arguing you are here to right great wrongs regarding the term "pagan", you say "It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”!" which doesn't instill confidence in me that you are here to build an encyclopedia. You say "I can improve my “civility”, I can offer smoother edit summaries, I can be less rude and sneering, I can refrain from personal attacks, I can gladly accept mentorship, I can learn and abide by Misplaced Pages rules, I can do or make an effort to do nearly everything I've been recommended to by both sympathetic and unsympathetic editors." And I believe that, and I hope you do. However I support the proposal because I want you to prove you can do that in a different topic area before returning to this one. Wugapodes (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes says: “If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly.”

And there we go with a new barrage of misinformation and tendentious accusations. In your frantic attempt to disqualify me, now you even falsely accuse me of “misquoting” you! Please have a look in the last sentence of your above post dated 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC), where you say with all the letters:

“As such, I still support a temporary topic ban, not because of the specific recent removal of pagan but because of the larger pattern of editing”.

Is it good enough for you or shall I make it in colors?

Wugapodes says: “I said "pattern of tendentious editing”.”

This you had said before, in the start of the same post. Now you want to decide even which part of your ungrounded accusations I have to quote, is it?

Anyway, the meaning is the same, because meanwhile everybody knows that you tendentiously want to frame me as “tendentious”. And the fact that you want to make a tempest in a teapot because of such a trifling “misquotation” puts in doubt your own good faith here.

Add to this that you have cavilously insinuated in your post dated 21:01, 20 January 2016 that mine is a “single purpose account”, obviously without showing any evidence for it. Your slurring insinuation having been exposed by my post dated 22:04, 20 January 2016, you later, closemouthedly stroke through your defaming insinuation, without having at least the decency to apologize.

Wugapodes says: “You seem to be missing my point that yes, in isolation, all of these actions would seem to be perfectly fine, it is them together with your edit summaries and agenda that raise them from a normal "pattern of editing" to a pattern of tendentious editing.”

How great! I've been accused of every single possible violation of Misplaced Pages pillars, rules, and guidelines, and now you say that all of my actions “seem to be perfectly fine”! What a waste this thread! I feel the joy and gratitude of Kash Delano or Bruce Lisker, who spent decades in jail only to be informed later that “all of their actions seemed perfectly fine”! Now finally I can relax, see my family again, and walk and dance in the streets without fearing the police!

But wait! Those engineering false accusations against the innocent did not give up! Now a new, unheard of, much more serious accusation against Jsp722 comes to the fore! While all and any of their edits “in isolation” seem to be “perfectly fine”, when put together they show Jsp722's actual agenda, an undeniable attempt to transform Misplaced Pages into the soapobox of Jsp722's sinister, “tendentious” ideologies!

The evidence is clear: Besides the enormous amount of three “pagan”-related edits in the short period of two years (2010-2011) — a furious average of one edit every eight months —, in the annus horribilis 2011 Jsp722 has also changed the name of Myanmar from its colonial name “Burma”, still favored by disgruntled ex-colonizers, to the actual, legal, official, UN accepted name “Myanmar” in an article's body! So dangerous this sneaky subversive is that even the main article itself was eventually moved from “Burma” to “Myanmar”! High time to ring the alarm bells!

Julian, the Roman emperor, is not anymore “the Apostate”, Myanmar is not anymore “Burma”, and soon “pagans” will be identified by meaningful names rather than by blanket genocide-supporting slurring! What will remain of the world as we knew it? The evidence is clear that Jsp722 is for years secretly subverting Misplaced Pages, but now me, Wugapodes, the smart one who does not recognize even his own quotes, caught them!

Wugapodes says: “In response to an editor arguing you are here to right great wrongs regarding the term "pagan", you say "It's funny how accusations of “tendentiousness” pop-up immediately as soon as someone just questions the hyper-tendentious slur “pagan”!" which doesn't instill confidence in me that you are here to build an encyclopedia.

Then according to you the hyper-tendentious, millenia-old genocide-supporting slur “pagan” does not prove that those insisting on its usage are even a little bit tendentious, but me calling Myanmar “Myanmar” proves that I am tendentious, is it? And how can I prove that you are not tendentious?

Wugapodes says: I support the proposal because I want you to prove you can do that in a different topic area before returning to this one.

To start with, I don't see any reason showing that I have to prove anything to anyone, specially not to you, given your aforementioned blunders and blatant inconsistencies.

Besides, this statement contradicts your whole quibble above. You said with all the letters that “in isolation” my actions “seem to be perfectly fine”. This means that all of my edits individually, including the ones about “pagan” and “paganism” are perfectly fine. Why now do you want to impose a sanction related specifically to such terms?

Moreover, you say that what is troubling are not my edits taken in isolation, but rather what you see as my general behavior, my “agenda”, my general “pattern of tendentious editing”. If so, why a ban only on “pagan”-related topics? Indeed, you should support a general ban, because of my larger “pattern of editing”, shouldn't you?

Furthermore, which “different topics”, not included in your “ban”, would you suggest before my return to “pagan” and “paganism”? Since my “agenda” is general, overarching, your proposed, limited ban, would be rather ineffectual. Indeed, I could still pursue my sinister designs editing countless other topics.

In such case, only a full ban from editing Misplaced Pages, or a full block on my account, would do.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Starting on February 11, 2009 and ending on January 7, 2016 (when this incident started), 83 months in all, I could find exactly 27 edited paged where edits were performed by me replacing words such as “pagan” and “paganism” with descriptive phrases such as “Norse religion” or “ancestral Slavic religion”. This makes an average of 0,32 edited pages per month, or one edit every three months. Recent edits were as follows:

1 Dazbog

2 Prussian Mythology

3 Germanic paganism

4 Old Prussians

5 Kaaba

6 Quraysh

7 Hubal

8 Sviatoslav I of Kiev

9 Varangians

10 Gamla Uppsala

11 Himyarite Kingdom

Edit #1 was “thanked” by the learned and experient editor Ivan Štambuk.

Edit #9 was praised and supported as “entirely appropriate” by barnstarred user ScrapIronIV, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #2 and edit #5 were both praised as “an improvement” by multi-barnstarred user Richard Keatinge, as seen above on the main thread.

Edit #8 was initially rejected by multi-awarded veteran editor Iryna Harpy, who notwithstanding later accepted the possibility of a suitable replacement for ”pagan” with the following words: “We'll see whether we can table a proposal on the article's talk page that other editors find acceptable”, as it can be seen from my talkpage.

All of the remaining 22 mentioned edited pages are similar. Besides, among the total 27 edited pages I could find only 5 which have been reverted by other editors in the last almost 7 years, until Hebel, the initiator of the current thread, at once reverted several of the most recent ones. However, even this user regretted the direction taken by the current incident with the words: “but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go?”, showing vivid willingness to discuss the topic outside disciplinary constraints, as one can see above, by the end of the main thread.

I hope that this objective data may help to put the current discussion in its due perspective. I'm no “vandal” (itself an ethnic slur) indiscriminately destroying Misplaced Pages pages . Rather, I'm the avid reader and the occasional editor; and whenever I edit I offer substantial edit summaries justifying my changes, without ever having entered any edit wars.

And no, mine is not a “single purpose account”, as suggested by Wugapodes above; my edits since February 11, 2009, have ranged from ancient Israel, to Sumeria, to human sacrifice, to Western philosophers such as Cassirer, Heidegger and Bergson, to Jainism, to Amorites, to Yoga, to Hindu conceptions of godhead, to American pharma companies, to German historians, to Scythians, to South Indian monasteries, to fighter jets, to Tibetan oracles, to the Greek Delphi, to Dionysian Mysteries, to Hebrew dynasties, to Epicureans, to Indian atomic theories, to Buddhist discourses, to Mongolian alphabets, to Tibetan dissidents, to Belarussian statecraft, to Chinese warlords, to Kashmiri pandits, to Kartvelian-speaking people, to Icelandic alphabets, to Iranian newspapers, to Buddhist iconography, to Mongolian Communist leaders, to Tibetan theocratic hierarchy, to Yazidi people, to Hypsistarians (this one was about the “pagan” word, in 2010, and is still there), to computer viruses, to Chinese geography, to Turkic generals, to Tsakonian peoples, to Iranian religions in the Himalayas, to country nomenclature, to Buddhist lineages, ritual and philosophy, to Jewish kabbalists, to Roman law, to Spiritism, to Norman kings, to Syrian politics, to uranium mining, to Greek goddesses, to old Indian metaphysical treatises, to Russian writers, to Central Asian demonology, to Manchurian statecraft, to Slavic gods, to Ukrainian politics, to Vedic gods, to Chinese ethnic minorities, to Portuguese navigators, to Tibetan philosophers, to Lithuanian monarchs, to Émile Durkheim, to Central Brazilian Native tribes, to even the already discussed articles were the “pagan” thing came about.

And, as to the suggested “cooling off”, it is already in place, both because I have refrained from any similar edits on the topic since the start of this thread, and because other more knowledgeable and skilled editors such as my informal mentor Rklawton, and Iryna Harpy, have already shown willingness to refine ideas and coordinate any future edit proposals on the topic, with ongoing discussions on my talkpage open for anyone interested on them.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been watching this discussion for a few days now and I feel it has been going on for too long. A six-month topic ban would be way over the top. It seems this user has a lot to contribute and has shown willingness to achieve consensus, let him get on with it. If it turns out mentoring doesn't help with improving issues with collaboration (edit comments and such), a temporary topic ban could still be revisited. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tend to agree. Editor seems to have become progressively more amenable to discussion. Agree with him that this is essentially a content dispute (over the use of two specific words). This thread really doesn't need to get any longer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Editor is just here to argue. Alternatively, a permanent block, as requested below, might be more suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Suport full block, as per editor's own suggestion. See below Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose. Support I'm reticent to involve myself with mentoring on a complex level, but discussions with Jsp722 suggest to me that the editor has moved on from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with other editors. I'm certainly aware of the fact that pagan/paganism is frequently used as a soft/lazy option instead of using the opportunity to make articles more informative. Despite the fact that, in most instances, it isn't used as a malicious or biased term, Jsp722 strikes me as being prepared to do some research in order to enhance the content. Should the editor go OTT, it will become evident soon enough and the prospect of a topic ban could be revisited. Rklawton is on a break, but was certainly willing to act as the primary mentor. Having seen the example Mrjulesd pointed out in the section below, I realise that I've inadvertently aided and abetted Jsp722 by pointing him/her to more articles to censor. Strike my support for this disruptive, POINTy editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Censor"? What has all of this got to do with censorship? This discussion here is getting more absurd by the day. Jsp722's changes have been well-reasoned and in this discussion everything Jsp722 has written (including his latest response to Mrjulesd below) is more sound than anything I have read from those trying to block him from editing. Robby.is.on (talk)

@Robby.is.on: Technically, trying to get rid of words because you just don't like them is censorship. In the majority of cases, the term "pagan" is not being used as a pejorative. If there are cases where the use of the term is obviously negatively geared, there are an abundance of editors with enough good sense to discern between WP:WEASEL and terminology used by reliable sources. Misplaced Pages needs editors who are WP:HERE to develop and improve content, to to wage crusades against perceived enemies of the WP:TRUTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: So, if I don't like the word "nigger" I should better leave as well? After all the rational arguments Jsp722 has given implying his main argument is "I just don't like it" is really not very fair at all and does not constitute "Good faith". If you don't think the word "pagan" is used as a pejorative, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't think you can just presume that's the consensus. Regarding all the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS accusations: Some people are more passionate about certain things than others, I think it is wrong to keep holding that against them when they have clearly shown to be open to discussion and achieving consensus. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for your opinion, Robby.is.on. You've had personal dealing with the user on articles... where? Sorry, but that's an appalling analogy. 1) There is an article on Nigger; 2) No one is going to ban the use of "Muslim" because of frequent pejorative use, and certainly far more broadly touted in the media as being an evil thing. I can't even remember the last time I saw "pagan" being used in the same derogatory sense. We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. There's "passionate", then there's WP:BATTLEGROUND, disruptive, uncivil, and lacking in the ability to back down when you've pushed it too far and feel justified in being continuously abusive and dismissive of other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Talks about the “pagan” topic are closed, Iryna. You came too late to the party. Besides, you've had personal dealings with me on my talkpage, which makes you ineligible to express any opinions here. Jsp722 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. LjL (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but this doesn't change anything. Jsp722 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I didn't realise personal dealings with a user on articles were required to afford an opinion on public goings-on here on ANI and elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. The point I was trying to make with what you call an "appalling analogy" is: 1. How does the disapproval of a undescriptive word such as "pagan" disqualify someone from editing?, 2. Who's to say that "pagan" might become an inappropriate word like "nigger" after rational debate / as Western society shakes off more religious baggage? To be clear: I'm disappointed how combative Jsp722 has become in the last couple of days. Still, I believe that bad faith as well as crude accusations have brought out the bad in Jsp722. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: full ban from editing any article on Misplaced Pages.

A partial ban, as discussed, would be thoroughly ineffectual, futile, because my sinister agenda aiming at subverting Misplaced Pages and destabilizing the world as we know it, together with my lack of civility, would inevitably just shift to countless other contentious topics, and I would anyway disruptively return to the “pagan” topic as soon as the ban would expire. Therefore, there is hardly another effective solution except for my permanent, irrevocable ban from editing any article on Misplaced Pages, or even better a full, permanent block on my account. Jsp722 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems I was mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

5THWHEEL. Calm down and sort things out. I'm sure some editors commenting here will be more than happy to see you go. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, QEDK. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm horribly confused. Is this the sarcastic "Gee" or the surprised "Gee"? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As usual for me, it's both. You were replying to me? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly, calm, thanks. But when do you want me to go? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hahaha, no need to go . I messed it up, my bad. That was definitely for Jsp722 (my 1st message). The 2nd message (where I asked you the meaning) was meant for you, hence I said that it was a reply for you. I hope all's clear. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 19:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shucks, I was going to dramatically "retire" in a fit of petulant frenzy. Now I guess I'll have to wait, at least until this thread is closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment As a possible compromise could you only replace "pagan" if you can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else? As it stands it's making articles less comprehensible. For example changing "pagan" to "ancestral beliefs" is less precise, which ancestors? Even replacing it with "non-Abrahamic religions" would be an improvement on ancestral beliefs, but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange, read the article for why. I simple don't believe you're improving articles by doing this, or that pagan is pejorative as the term is proudly used by many neo-pagan organizations. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Jsp722 would find a topic ban far more tantalising than a full ban. I think he'd find such an outcome far more difficult to comply with. Mere mention of the "p-word" is like lighting the blue touch paper. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is behind your shocking attitude, you have just confessed that your purpose here is definitely not to build any encyclopedia, but to feel pleasure inflicting what you see as psychological pain on other editors, as more “tantalizing” to them, thus maliciously encouraging the outcome you believe to be “far more difficult” for them “to comply with”.

This attitude is not only sick, but also violates the whole spirit of Misplaced Pages. It is a disgrace for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a place for learning and sharing knowledge, not a place for compensating for personal frustrations. I believe that you need serious reeducation in order fruitfully to remain in this community, if this is what you wish.

As to me, I'm neutral about outcomes. As already remarked by Richard Keatinge, I may have indeed a penchant for fixing buzzwords, even if this is not a deliberate program or “agenda”. “Pagan” is far from being the first on Misplaced Pages, and, depending on outcomes, will not be the last. I don't have to edit and discuss personally this or any another buzzword so that changes are implemented successfully. Other equally controversial buzzwords have been successfully changed after my edits, but without my participation in the ensuing debates. And there are countless buzzwords, which means that the potential joy of fixing them is infinite. A partial, topic ban will just add more sauce to the discussion, which I don't look for, but I don't mind either, as it attracts attention to it. Usually those opposing change are precisely those helping it, just because their panicking overreaction brings the attention of many to that which needs to be changed. Who ever cared about the word “pagan” before? Hardly anyone. But now the debate on the topic is raging — and will keep raging whatever is the outcome about “Jsp722” — which, I believe, is a good thing. And then I'll be free joyfully to pursue this or other topics, within or without Misplaced Pages.

Jsp722 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no desire to "inflict psychological pain on other editors". That was just an observation based on your inability to leave the discussion to another place. But, to leave no doubt, I'm happy to fully support your suggestion for a permanent block on your account, which you say will be "even better" than "a full ban from editing any article on Misplaced Pages". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Now it's too late. You have been caught redhanded confessing with all the letters that your actual purpose and motivation here is sadistically and debauchedly to inflict what you see as psychological pain on other editors — just changing your vote will not disguise this crude reality. Jsp722 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "with all the letters"? You've used that phrase three times now. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only give explanations after the fourth time. Jsp722 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(Mrjulesd) says: As a possible compromise could you only replace "pagan" if you can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else?

There are plenty of sources detailing Norse, Lusitanian, Slavic, Arabic, Greek, Roman, ], and any number of other so-called “pagan” religions. And, even if there were absolutely no such sources, it would be still thoroughly inadequate to bluntly call them “pagan” for all the already extensively discussed reasons.

For instance, there is relatively little information on Harappan, or on Hittite, or on pre-Buddhist and pre-Manichaeist Tocharian religions, but hardly anyone calls them “pagan”, simply because they were not an object of Christian genocidal discourse.

(Mrjulesd) says: As it stands it's making articles less comprehensible. For example changing "pagan" to "ancestral beliefs" is less precise, which ancestors?

The actual question here is rather, which beliefs?, in reference to the beliefs held by Slavs before their Christianization. In this specific case, I replaced the phrase “documents describing the beliefs of pagan Slavs” with the phrase “documents describing the ancestral beliefs of Slavs”.

Now, it is clear that Slavs had their own traditional, ancestral beliefs, encompassing mythology, ritual, cosmology, folklore, calendars, festivals, taboos, paraphernalia, and so forth, all with well-established Indo-European roots, as you can see, for instance, on the article Slavic mythology.

Of course there would still be other alternatives, such as “Slavic traditional beliefs”, or “Slavic Indo-European beliefs”. I would reject “Slavic pre-Christian” beliefs, as there is no need to define such a wealth of inherited beliefs with a negation, or merely in relation to Christianity.

(Mrjulesd) says: Even replacing it with "non-Abrahamic religions" would be an improvement on ancestral beliefs, but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange.

Since “non-Abrahamic” could be Indo-European, Semitic, Turkic, Mongolic, Sinitic, Maya, Aztec, Dravidian, and many other things, just “non-Abrahamic” is still far from qualifying for the requirements of the job — although it might occasionally be useful as a clarification or a complement.

“Ancestral” is still much better than “non-Abrahamic”, just because Slavs had only one “ancestral” religion, which is their, er..., ancestral, inherited, traditional, aboriginal, native, Indo-European-rooted religion.

Please note that the beliefs of the Slavs before their Christianization are as much “ancestral Indo-European beliefs” as the beliefs of Arabians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and so forth, before their Christianization or Islamization, are “ancestral Semitic beliefs”.

In both sets of cases, they were ancestral and “non-Abrahamic” beliefs, but they had each their own specific, distinctive roots, either Indo-European or “Semitic” — “Semitic” itself being merely a biblical- and quranic-rooted, longstanding, unscientific buzzword (a great topic to explore, in case of a “pagan”-limited topic ban).

Bottom line, even though “non-Abrahamic” is indeed far better than the ridiculous “pagan” blanket derogation, it is still merely a poorly-informing negation, or generality.

(Mrjulesd) says: but again it is less precise as it is not a perfect interchange, read the article for why.

As with “non-Christian”, the phrase “non-Abrahamic”, while possibly useful, depending on context, is just a generality, a negation, and therefore a poor way of informing readers about the discussed topic, to wit, the actual, specific religion followed by Sviatoslav I of Kiev, the very subject of the article, much of whose historic importance is precisely related to such religion.

“Pagan”, while explicitly not a negation, is actually one, and a imprecise and inaccurate one to that effect, as already extensively discussed in the main thread, as it merely means “non-something”, and informs nothing about what the specific “pagan” religion is supposed to be. Was Sviatoslav I of Kiev following Arabian “pagan” beliefs? Or maybe Hindu “pagan” beliefs? Or who knows Norse, or Korean, or Bantu “pagan” beliefs?

“Pagan” informs nothing, and actually it hides from and denies the reader the information they are entitled to receive, which is the actual, specific, concrete religion followed by Sviatoslav I of Kiev. And by the way this is the very purpose of the creation and multimillenial usage of the word “pagan”: to deface, to dehumanize, to reduce to insignificance that which is supposed to be eliminated from life and from memory.

“Pagan” is a bit like the “Devil”: one is not supposed to know anything about them, except that they are to be hated. Beyond mere derogatoriness, its uncritical usage is nothing short from religious discourse and propaganda, something not supposed to have place in Misplaced Pages, as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX guidelines.

And this brings another important argument: the word “pagan”, even apart from its derogatoriness and manifold other defects, expresses a purely Christian point-of-view, or how Christianity sees non-Abrahamic culture. Now, Misplaced Pages is supposed to non-point-of-view, neutral, not viewing the world from any ethnic or religious point-of-view.

Reducing the non-Christian to merely “pagan” is akin to the Hebrew usage of “goy” referring to the non-Hebrew, or the ancient Greek “barbarian” referring to the non-Greek, or the Vedic “mlechccha” (barbarian) referring to foreigners in general, and so forth. These are all terms used from the specific point-of-view of those cultures, and none should be used by a neutral encyclopedia, which is what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be.

(Mrjulesd) says: read the article for why.

This is not enough. You have to say which part of the article you think says what and proves what; then I'll be pleased to give you an answer. This is the way a serious discussion develops.

(Mrjulesd) says: I simple don't believe you're improving articles by doing this,

Great. That's why we have talkpages and even dispute resolution pages. There you can express your disbelief, and support them with specific reasons and quotations, rather than the blanket argument “read the article for why”.

What is striking, however, is that you started your current post proposing “a possible compromise” if only one “can find reliable sources describing said religion as something else” apart from “pagan”, which as shown is precisely the case — just to finish the same post with the prejudiced, negative, statement that “I simply don't believe you're improving articles by doing this”.

Therefore, the intention of your post is not clear. Are you sincerely interested on discussing the topic, in order to reach a reasonable settlement, which is going to serve the reader rather than anyone's personal prejudice, or are you just parti pris interested on bolstering your already given vote for my banning, tardily adding your oh-so-weak, unbaked arguments?

To be honest, your intention actually became crystal-clear. You are not discussing in good faith. Your intention is not to find the best for the reader. Your intention is just to eliminate an editor you see as a rival and who holds opinions opposing your prejudices. You were just pretending that you were looking for a “possible compromise”, and making others waste time with it.

(Mrjulesd) says: or that pagan is pejorative as the term is proudly used by many neo-pagan organizations.

This wasted, pedestrian argument has already undergone full rebuttal on this thread, without any further comment from you or anyone else. Please make a favor to yourself and others, and read the whole thread from the start, and get acquainted with it, before untimely coming with digested food as it were a fresh plate.

To conclude, an interesting, illustrative quotation from the Swedish scholar Alexandra Sanmark in her paper “Power and Conversion — A Comparative Study of Chritianization in Scandinavia” might be in order:

“The terminology used to describe pre-Christian cultic ideas and practices will now be considered. Two terms that are commonly used are ‘paganism’ and ‘pre-Christian religion’. Neither of these will be used in this thesis. ‘Paganism’ has been avoided because its obvious negative connotations. ”

Jsp722 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job we've all agreed this isn't the most appropriate place to discuss use of the word, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

“We” who? Jsp722 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

How could I forget? You are the one already caught calling yourself “we”, as beforehand remarked, and below quoted — a well-known symptom of alternate personalities, or “alters”, within Dissociative Identity Disorder — remember?

We can see why you're so popular here. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Are you two, or how many? Jsp722 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah right, I "got caught". Yes, I should have put "Good job you've agreed... "Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Right you are, because agreeable I am. But since others, including you, have not agreed, here we are still on this thread. Jsp722 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You said "discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page". But you continue to discuss here, at great length, whenever the opportunity arises. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If so, you should complain to those making such opportunities arise, including you. It was not me starting this thread, and from the very beginning I say that it does not belong here — but for some strange reason almost everyone else, including you, has disagreed and insisted on the content discussion. Jsp722 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've insisted on nothing of the sort. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

None of you? Jsp722 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jsp722: Mrjulesd asked that you provide sources each time you replace the adjective "pagan" with more a descriptive, appropriate adjective. That is a non-negotiable policy and a part of the core principles of Misplaced Pages, and if you provide those sources, many editors will support you. This board is not for general discussion of religion and paganism, and is not a place for sarcasm or mock proposals. -Darouet (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Darouet says to Jsp722: Mrjulesd asked that you provide sources each time you replace the adjective "pagan" with more a descriptive, appropriate adjective.

Thank you for the confirmation. I though it was just my imagination.

Anyway, just to keep the record straight, “pagan” is sometimes a noun.

Darouet says to Jsp722: That is a non-negotiable policy and a part of the core principles of Misplaced Pages,

Thank you for refreshing my memory. Are you a human or a robot?

Darouet says to Jsp722: and if you provide those sources, many editors will support you.

I though that many editors were supporting me because of my beautiful blue eyes, but thinking well it must be because I've hardly done anything here apart from providing sources, together with reasons.

As to previous edits, I would definitely have offered such sources on talkpages, if at least I had had the opportunity to. But, as you can check, I was directly and summarily reported to this ANI page for trial and execution by a disgruntled editor, without having had the opportunity even to offer one single source!

Darouet says to Jsp722: This board is not for general discussion of religion and paganism,

Do you really think it was my choice to discuss this content topic here? But judging from the interest triggered by the topic on this page, I think it was not a bad idea after all!

Darouet says to Jsp722: and is not a place for sarcasm or mock proposals.

Have you seen “sarcasm” or “mock proposals” anywhere? Please provide your sources, such as quotations or screenshots, and support them with credible reasons.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: My eyes are not actually blue, as the post above might have suggested. But they are still beautiful, depending of course on the beholder. Jsp722 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you not comprehend that you've completely blown any assumption of good faith on your behalf, Jsp722? Your volatile nature and WP:WALLSOFTEXT have fairly much precluded you from any form of mentorship. Editing Misplaced Pages requires WP:COMPETENCE and an ability to work collaboratively without throwing toys out of your pram when you don't get your way. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's really offensive - Iryna originally opposed your being banned on the notion that you meant well. At this point, the advantages you might have brought to wikipedia are totally overshadowed by a level of condescension and arrogance that make collaboration with you impossible. -Darouet (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Feeling sleepy? Time you had a long rest, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The walls of text are easily explained: Jsp722 seems to be very diligent in taking apart the frivolous and crude arguments and accusations thrown around. Tragically, they nevertheless are repeatedly and mindlessly regurgitated. I don't know how I'd react to such a ridiculous trial. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support permanent block on account, as per editor's own proposal above. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your third vote, the three of them in diametrically different directions, in 24 hours or so. You have voted for “full ban”, “partial ban”, and “no ban”. And me, naively thinking that “you” (the one who calls themselves “we”) were only two, but now I know that you are at least three! Jsp722 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's my third choice of vote. Editors can change their mind as often as they wish. I only changed in the light of your responses here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your vote became irrelevant, from the moment you confessed, as one can see above, that your intention here is debauchedly to inflict what you see as psychological pain on other editors. The confessed meanness of your intention makes of you a rogue member of this community. Jsp722 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was a comment about your pattern of editing. But feel free to propose an indef block for me if you believe that is justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I don't find joy in pursuing punishment for others. This I leave for folks like you and Softlavender. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Any editor who is so lost as to petulantly and/or sarcastically propose their own perma-ban does not have the competence or maturity to participate collaboratively in this project. They asked for it let them live with it. Jbh 17:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - We have many administrators willing to consider self-requested blocks. --allthefoxes 17:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Disclaimer: The two votes above were spontaneous, thus presumably reflecting the voters' actual opinions, and were by no means canvassed or votestacked by me. Jsp722 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Among the most common things which leads to sanctions for long term editors is not knowing when to just stop posting. You have made 263 edits to this thread. You may want to consider whether so many posts are doing you more harm than good. I am certain the non-threaded walls of replies are disruptive. Jbh 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me how someone could waste one's Saturday counting the posts of someone else. Anyway, the immense majority of my edits are just minor ones, about spelling, punctuation, grammar, linking, formatting, polishing the phrasing, and the such (even if sometimes I forget to tag them as “minor”).

Otherwise, all of my posts, including this one, are just answers to someone, like you.

By the way, a reply by definition is threaded, isn't it? — otherwise it simply wouldn't be a reply.

Jsp722 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the “wall of replies”, actually they are saving space and time. If you care to check, after them usually there is no further answer from the questioning editor. The reason is that the question is fully dissected by the “wall of replies”, and nothing remains to be said. Still, it is hardly my fault that newcomers insist on already discussed topics. Jsp722 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• 40% of Jsp722's edits have been to this now-2-week-old ANI thread. From this I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Jsp722 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Therefore I'm going to support this proposal before he wastes much more of the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ooh, how dare one defend themselves. That alone, is apparently worthy of a ban. /s --MurderByDeletionism 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block, with WP:STANDARDOFFER. 40% (260+) of Jsp722's (720+) edits have been to this now-2-week-old ANI thread. From this I think it's fairly obvious at this point that Jsp722 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Therefore I support this proposal and hope this is effected before he wastes much more of the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have nothing of substance to say, it's best to say nothing at all. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything. I've just yawned. Jsp722 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that you're taking any of this seriously. clpo13_(talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm so eager to inspire your confidence. Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support indef block - The editor has requested his own block above. Easy enough. Do it and let's move on. Jusdafax 20:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block at user's own request. Keri (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block because I use an experimental browser that has trouble showing overly long pages and this thread isn't helping. LjL (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. Jsp722 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block... and pronto, please. It appears Jsp772 is convinced s/he is a martyr and can't wait to get onto as many blogs as possible to boast about it. Oh, and Jsp722, given your alacrity in citing policies and guidelines when you've had little real editing experience, if you think you're going to have success WP:SOCKing, think again. Everything about your style gives you away. You'd be able to conceal your smug, superior tone for more than a single confrontation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You really managed to read my thoughts! I was just wondering about my next nick so that no one suspects! What about Jsp723? Jsp722 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I originally thought this person had something to offer, but obviously not. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for having deceived you. When I reincarnate as Jsp723 I'll try to be more clear about myself. Jsp722 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: This thread is now two weeks old and over 140,000 bytes long

At the moment this thread is 2 weeks old and over 140,000 bytes long, and counting. The vast majority of the thread is Jsp722's endless pointy sarcasm, ridicule, and mockery, walls of text, and time-wasting, as exemplified by the following response to this good-faith and obvious question: . I'd personally like to see the situation dealt with fairly expeditiously, so that the thread does not grow another 100,000 bytes and waste the community's time another week or two before closure. Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually this thread had already reached its natural end a long time ago, with a mutually accepted proposal of mentorship, and even with a designated mentor, when you suddenly irrupted with your weird request for punishment. Afterwards, when the mentorship was already active and showing promising development, Richard Keatinge, in a very conciliatory way, asked if you agree with the closing of the thread, with these words:

Softlavender, would you think this a good point to close this thread, or are any further actions required? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

However, you didn't even care to give an answer. Therefore, if anyone is responsible for the unnecesary overextension of this thread, the answer is hardly anyone except for you, seemingly more interested on punishment than on conciliaton.

Jsp722 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So why propose an indef block for yourself, three days later: ? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't remember anymore. Probably I was bored. Jsp722 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Adding: The fact that this thread has grown so endlessly repetitious and increasingly disruptive on Jsp722's part is an indication that WP:IDHT is a basic problem here and is not likely to improve, indeed has only gotten worse; I can only foresee increasingly more of the same. Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny that you always find a WP:SOMETHING to support your obsession with punishing! Does it make you feel more confident? Jsp722 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest rapid close of this thread. Now starting to approach incivility. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that as the trolling accelerates, block, close, and WP:DENY become increasingly appropriate. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that “trolling” is a rather derogatory word. Please drop a line on my talkpage so that we find a suitable replacement. Jsp722 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Trolling" seems perfectly accurate and at this point I genuinely wish this incident is closed swiftly by virtue of an indefinite-length block on Jsp722 without further waste of space. LjL (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss the accuracy of words. Besides, indefinite length will waste too much space. Jsp722 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. ). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits (), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ( and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion (). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk (, until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past (), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ( For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Misplaced Pages. — Bilorv_(talk) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content issue. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions thus far.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Misplaced Pages principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, Snow Rise. I'm afraid I feel that Eaglestorm is not going to change, following their presumably intentional choice to refuse to discuss this even at ANI, the edit summary "illegal block by conspirators", this rant and rude comments to IPs like this (although to be fair, the IP was wrong to make this revert). I understand that Eaglestorm has been around for a while and made a lot of edits, and while I'm sure many of the ones he/she makes today are still constructive (e.g. this and this, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter), if they were a new editor solely reverting edits to HIMYM articles and writing these overly intense rants, I would probably be quoting WP:CIR. They've been blocked five times and they still don't get the message. I don't wish them any ill will, but I do feel that this discussion has been in vain. However, I still hope Eaglestorm will take your comments on board and try to react less angrily and defensively in the future. — Bilorv_(talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose indef block. While this thread does look to be a masquerading content dispute, what we really have here is a user with a long history of blocks for edit warring, refusing to discuss anything in any venue, and personal attacks. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project; any one of these would be unacceptable behaviour as isolated incidents, but together and in a pattern they show an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to the NPA block above was to post a screed disguised as an unblock request railing against the "deletionist alliance" (paraphrased) working against them, which after their block expired they removed immediately with a note decrying the "illegal block by conspirators" (removing a personal attacks block notice with another personal attack), followed by a nasty note (now deleted; it included the text "Get lost and mind your own business, loser!") to an IP with three edits. We don't need any more of this kind of editor around here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I have to agree. Unfortunately, this user appears to unambigously lack even basic competency with regard to our most minimal standards for civility and the collaborative process. Indeed, despite more than eight years on the project, they seem to lack familiarity with many of our most straight-forward content and behavioural guidelines. At this point, it is pretty obvious that they will not desist in outright harassing any editor which they perceive to be members of the "conspiracy" that exists in their head; they cannot disengage from said editors because "these assholes" are "RUINING EVERYTHING!". Frankly, at this juncture, the diatribes have devolved to the point where I honestly don't think they can be described accurately as anything but meltdowns and temper-tantrums. Even putting aside the paranoid suggestion of conspiracies, I just don't think this user has the social maturity required to participate on this project. Snow 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Snow rise has summed it up nicely. For an editor to have been here as long as Eaglestorm, this really is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise, as well as the fact that this editor should know this type of behavior is unacceptable, considering they have over 13,000 edits and have been here for eight years. Not to mention this] complete lack of trying to recognize wrong behavior, as well as trying to shunt blame to other editors in a ban appeal. Boomer Vial (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Eaglestorm continues incivility and refusal to co-operate in a different topic, Ace Combat articles, with this and this edit summary directed at ScrapIronIV. I'm unsure as to what "going after me with all those other editors" is supposed to mean (possible this very ANI thread, which is completely and utterly unrelated?), but "unjustified stupidity by troll" is a violation of WP:AGF at best, and in my opinion another personal attack. I think that an indef block is warranted. — Bilorv_(talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I have had minimal interaction with this editor. As posted in links above, posting a 3RR warning on their page was "unjustified stupidity by troll", warning them of that incivility was "continued harassment" and made me part of some cabal that is out to get them. I do not believe this is acceptable behavior. Scr★pIron 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I'm going to have to agree with Snow Rise on this matter. This degree of uncivilized behavior is appalling to say the least. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Misplaced Pages on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits (). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" , but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism ,,) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies and a couple dictionary definitions including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition. For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, having already suggested it at great length in 2014. See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions, the majority of his long Misplaced Pages career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Misplaced Pages or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~ 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~ 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely fine; this can certainly be a section of the article (provided that it's done appropriately... lol ;-)) - but when you put those kinds of words in the lead paragraph (especially in the first sentence that describes who or what the article subject even is), it implies a very biased viewpoint. The adjective "white supremacist" (when describing a person) is very controversial and it puts the article out of the neutral zone if used to describe someone in your opening statement. This is the issue, and it is the primary cause of the focus in this ANI. ~Oshwah~ 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Misplaced Pages. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Misplaced Pages:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the reality then it can be stated plainly in the opening sentence or in the lede in general, if it's well supported by reliable sources. It is not necessarily a violation of NPOV to do so, as someone else said above. NPOV is about representing sources neutrally and with due weight. It does not prohibit stating a harsh truth plainly if that is supported by reliable sources. I also don't see any policy that is about not using modern-day takes to define an article's subject. If information later comes out that changes the general perception of a subject, then this is indeed used. For instance, Monsanto did knowingly sell PCBs long after they knew of their dangers, and they hid those dangers. That was in the 1960s and the 1970s. The knowledge of this came out in the year 2000 with a legal proceeding that revealed internal memos showing their culpability and knowledge at the time. This knowledge would be fair to use to define what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, with good sourcing. History is often revised with further knowledge and with further interpretation. In fact many people were white supremacists while they may not have explicitly called it that at the time. The degree to which that was a notable ideological principle in a person might be the measure of whether it should be a primary label for them. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't want to take this discussion to far since it belongs somewhere else, I think there's an obvious difference between information about a historic situation (regardless of when that information became available) and modern intepretations of events and behaviour based not on new information but modern beliefs, values etc. To give a made up example, if someone finds a letter from some BC/BCE individual where this person calls for the elimination of race X via force, that would be new information. If someone says that person was calling for genocide, that would be to some extent a modern intepretation. This doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't include the information in the lead. (Actually I'm somewhat symphathetic to including the information in the lead here, although I do question whether it would make sense if we were talking about a BC/BCE individual. And to go back to my earlier example, I also support the current or a similar wording in the Genghis Khan article.) Rather all I'm saying is we should make a distinction between how our understanding of events change based on new facts or information that emerges of what was going on; how our understanding of events changes based on our modern day values, ethics, beliefs etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree with this distinction very much, and i hold that both are valid. The link to WP:PRESENTISM above is interesting, though it's an essay and not a policy or guideline, so it's not required to be followed in toto. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

There is an on-going battle over details of content which should be on the David Bain page. This has now been going on for some weeks. Although there have been a number of editors involved, the one who has been the most disruptive is Mr Maggoo. Others who have been constructive are Akldguy, Moriori and Gadfium.

Mr Maggoo is the self published author of a book titled The Bain Killings Whodunnit? written under the pseudonym Michael Sharp. He outed himself in correspondence with Akld guy here. He seems to have very strong opinions that David Bain is guilty of the murders for which he has been acquitted. Although there has been much discussion on the David Bain talk page about the various issues, Mr Maggoo has shown himself to be incapable of "hearing" what other editors are saying. In response, he has often taken a hostile approach when communicating on the talk page. He frequently adds or deletes material without giving a reason on the main page and his justifications on the Talk page make little sense. There are so many examples of his disruptive behaviour, it is hard to know where to begin. Turtletop (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that when I edit the David Bain Misplaced Pages page citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles and books Turtletop deletes them. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Maggoo has a history of quoting unreliable sources, especially the David Bain:Counterspin website. He also repeatedly tries to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred for lying. Even when he does quote a reliable source, he seems to have little understanding of whether the information he wishes to include is relevant. His edits all support the view that David Bain is guilty even though the privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and his convictions have been overturned. Turtletop (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain article has had ongoing disputes mostly between SPA accounts for some time. A sockpuppet investigation on some of the accounts found them to be unrelated. I semi-protected the article to prevent new SPAs getting involved, and have tried to keep all parties discussing on the talk page.-gadfium 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain murder case has been highly controversial in New Zealand. Mr Maggoo is a novice editor who began editing on 11 December 2015, and has edited nothing but DB-related pages since. He became frustrated at being asked to provide reliable sources and indent his posts correctly. He initially ignored advice that he was not permitted to cite from his own work or from a highly NPOV website, Counterspin. Nevertheless, he has learned much, albeit slowly. He is now competently adding information to the DB article which the OP objects to. This is essentially a content dispute and I note that the OP has not asked for any particular action here. Akld guy (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is partly a content dispute. But it is also about Mr Magoo's attitude and disruptive editing. Some of the edits he says he will make on the talk page are reflective of taking revenge rather than being constructive. I would like to see Mr Maggoo blocked from editing OR the page completely protected from editing by anyone except administrators. Turtletop (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You yourself removed highly relevant material that was correctly cited and pertained to the alleged pregnancy or childbirth of one of the victims. You did that, despite knowing that your removal of it would be controversial. Mr Maggoo should absolutely not be blocked. He has learned much and has now become a threat to the NPOV editing of the page by Turtletop. Both Mr Maggoo and Turtletop have edited contentiously, but there has been no bad behaviour, insults, or abuse that would justify a block on either, and certainly not on Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Mr Maggoo made an edit about you in which he told you to stop being a girl. You have also seem to have allied yourself with Mr Maggoo by reposting a link to his self-published book and made insulting comments to Moriori accusing him of a conflict of interst with no evidence whatsoever. You have also made insulting comments about David Bain's sister in this post: "Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)"

Your neutrality and your personal judgement are highly questionable. Turtletop (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy has played a valuable role in mediating between the conflicting parties.-gadfium 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He has also contributed to the conflict and has started his own one with Moriori.Turtletop (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't make this about me. I have not aligned myself with Mr Maggoo. I came down on him hard in his early edits for not sourcing appropriately, and reverted many of them, but now that he has learned, he is posting material that you don't want in the article. I believe that some of that material he's adding should justifiably be in it. I did not accuse Moriori of having a conflict of interest, but asked him whether he had one, asking for a yes/no, not his identity. I note that he has not yet answered the question despite the elapse of more than two hours, prior to which he was active on the Talk page. He has to be given time to answer of course. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking is equivalent to accusing. Why did you ask/accuse him in the first place? You appear to have done this to divert attention away from your posting of a link to Mr Maggoo's COI self-published book. Turtletop (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Gadfium, he may have played a mediation role, but he undid that with other behaviour, and I am quite surprised you didn't give him a little nudge for his insults to me. At the Bain talk page I have left the following reply to his latest insult -- "You continue with offensive insult. The Misplaced Pages article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Misplaced Pages articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI." Moriori (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also suggested that a total block could be put on the page. It's about all of us - and you seem to be avoiding taking any responsibility for your offensive behaviour towards other editors. If you don't want it to be about you, then I suggest you withdraw your insults to Moriori and apologise.

It would also help if you stopped accusing me of not being neutral. Bain was found not guilty and my contributions generally support that outcome. When you and Mr Maggoo add material which undermines that reality, you are not being neutral - and that's what leads to the content dispute. Turtletop (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reply to a number of false allegations made about me by Turtletop. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First he accuses me of citing the Counterspin website. I have not cited the Counterspin website. I asked if I could cite the Counterspin website as a reference and was told I could not. Turtletop himself has cited the Counterspin website. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second he accuses me repeatedly trying to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred. This is not correct. When I first started editing on Misplaced Pages I set up a paragraph heading Response by Michael Guest. At that time I wasn't aware I had to cite a source. That paragraph was removed for that reason. I then asked if I could cite two different sources as a reference and was told that neither of those sources were reliable. I have not been able to find a reliable source I can site re that paragraph, so I have not tried to set it up again. Once is not repeatedly. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third, he says all my edits support the view that David Bain is guilty. I resent that insinuation. I just find an article pertaining to the subject and cite it. I could just as easily say that all Turtletops edits support the view that David Bain is innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, he says I have little understanding as to whether the information I am including is relevant. Let me assure Turtletop that I have no problem deciding what is relevant and what is not. And might I add I always endeavour to quote verbatim from the article I am citing. For example I don't say "some academics" when the article cited only refers to one academic. Turtletop would have us believe that a number of academics support the suggestion made by Justice Binnie that the Government was "shopping around" . From what I have read one law professor supports Binnie and three law professors disagree with that suggestion. ] (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is directed to Turtletop You are definitely not neutral. You are trying to keep the insinuation that Laniet may have been pregnant/given birth/aborted as a result of incest by her father, despite the fact that not one witness has ever stepped forward to say that they saw Laniet with a baby, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had given birth, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet gave away a baby for adoption. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a pregnancy/baby/abortion. Mr Maggoo and I are attempting to corroborate that with highly relevant pathology and hospital record material that shows that there was almost certainly never any pregnancy. You have on several occasions disruptively attempted to censor that pathology and medical material from the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly anyone KNEW anything about this case. That’s why it has been controversial for 20 years. And of course there are no witnesses who KNEW Robin Bain raped Laniet or committed incest with her. But multiple witnesses testified that Laniet told them her father was sexually abusing her. On that basis the Privy Council obviously concluded that where there is smoke (and there was a lot of it), there may well be fire - so they declared there had been a miscarriage of justice. If you still think you need to include material that you think proves she wasn’t pregnant, can I suggest you read the following. Under the heading Due and undue weight, WP says:

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence”… “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects”.

If you insist on including testimony that Laniet was NOT pregnant, you are giving undue weight to a minority aspect which was of no relevance to the Privy Council or to the jury at the retrial. The topic is David Bain (and perhaps whether or not he is guilty). Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is not the topic.Turtletop (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is germane to two issues: 1. that she was pregnant to her father, which you are trying to insinuate is a motive for him killing the members of his family, 2. the issue of Laniet's credibility, since if she was given to fantasies about a pregnancy/childbirth/abortion/white baby versus black baby, then there exists the possibility that the alleged incest with her father was also a fantasy. You are trying to censor from the article medical evidence that refutes a pregnancy because it counters your insinuation that there was a pregnancy/baby. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's credibility is not the topic. David Bain's is - or was. Your allegation of censorship is offensive. I don't control anything on WP so I can't possibly censor it. Please use more moderate language. Your allegation that I am insinuating that Laniet was pregnant to her father is also offensive. You have now said this a number of times. I have never said any such thing and your insinuations are a breach of WP:assume good faith

You have refused to apologise to Moriori over your insinuation that he had a COI so I don't expect you will apologize to me for your behaviour either. It would go a long way towards resolving this if you did. Turtletop (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of trying to communicate with other editors via edit summaries - would you consider using the talkpage first, and holding off on reverting other editors as an absolute last resort? SQL 07:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tried the Talk page. It didn't work. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to master the correct procedure when using Misplaced Pages. Could I just say in my defence that it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks specially when that old dog is in his eighties. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of us come out of this scrap looking good. I ask that some uninvolved people add the article to their watchlists, and crack down on any poor behaviour.-gadfium 04:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. They generally have zero tolerance towards this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...I find this Mr Maggoo's choice of name interesting to say the least? 😨 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page is protected for 2 days. Will escalate protection, or issue blocks if the warring continues. SQL 23:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “ not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “ insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at , and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: , what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD which I restored . He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR. (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago , but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago , Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed , then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking . It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before). and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed , you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed . Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage . That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon  14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: , at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: , , , , , , and . Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. The comments that led me to write the sentence just before this one were subsequently redacted by the editor who made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to draw clear lines against a lot of kinds of behavior to show that they will not be tolerated, to ensure neutrality of articles. If the polices and guidelines were actually enforced across the board, without prejudice or bias, then things would work around here. Also note that it is a relative judgment as to who is a POV pusher and who is an editor pushing back against POV pushers. Conjectures as to motivations are also subject to error quite often. The policies and guidelines are clear. We need them to either be enforced equally, or ignored equally. Otherwise, we have biased enforcement, which of course leads to a bias in empowerment of editors, which of course leads to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

• Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Misplaced Pages and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevant external link - useful/valid or too close to "outing"?

I'm writing an article on the UK undercover policing relationships scandal. As part of this I came across the following link (embedded in the wikimarkup via comment to avoid oxygen: ><). It aims to identify and document relationship aliases of the kind condemned by police chiefs today, as far as I can tell. I'd like views whether or not it is appropriate to add this as an external link.

Why it might be appropriate:

• High profile issue in UK; police themselves acknowledge in their statement that this activity was completely unacceptable and that targeted persons are considered victims of abuse
• Genuine research value - a person researching this area may well have a legitimate interest in learning what is known and cases it arose, which is hard to find elsewhere
• Factual rather than opinion, not designed or intended as an "attack page" per se
• "Names" are of persons using aliases in which there is legitimate significant public interest

Why it might not be appropriate:

• Could be considered an attack page anyhow, even if not intended as one?
• We don't have to advertise people's details as "persons who may have been involved in a kind of wrongful official action" (although we usually do when they are known and we have an article on the matter, see 'Death of Freddie Grey' and others).
• Potential for harm vs potential for beneficial encyclopedic information?

Comments appreciated; this is a delicate decision I wouldn't like to make without some sense of how views shape up and/or consensus. Not posted on article talk page in order to avoid oxygen there until it's clearer and because I'd like experienced views on it. FT2  11:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ELN might be a better place, though it seems somewhat dead. Maybe advertise this request for feedback there? --Izno (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been involved in the discussion directly above this one, and I happened to glance down and notice this – and I also happen to have been involved in recent discussions about the outing policy, so it's something where I have been giving the subject some thought. Of course, you are not proposing to out any Misplaced Pages editors, but it happens that none other than Jimbo Wales himself put a sentence into the outing policy long ago, that says that one also should not "out" the subjects of pages, a concept that today would be more associated with BLP. It seems to me that the critical issue for you to consider is the extent to which the EL would reveal real names or other personal information about the persons using those aliases, to a greater extent than what is generally known throughout the source material. If there are lots of other published sources that name these people, or link to their names at that EL, then you really would not be revealing anything that isn't already public information, and there would be no problem with the EL. But if you have found a website that just happens to have this personal information, but that information is not widely known, so that these persons could be considered private individuals rather than public figures, then I think that it would be best to omit the EL. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Refusing proper categorization

• KewinRozz (talk · contribs · count)

I properly categorized the Lavdrim Muhaxheri-article, created by the user, see diff here. I was reverted, insisted, was reverted, then initiated a discussion. From the discussion, it is clear that the user does not know how to properly categorize people. He is new, and this is his only article. After several replies clarifying the matter, he is still not getting it. Last revert here. I have assumed good faith, but I'm losing patience. Am I wrong here?--Zoupan 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've replied on the talk page; As for now I'm reverting this to the original version which has been co - edited by not only me. The categories should be consistent with the article. I think that you're confusing subcategories with main categories when it's the main categories that are referenced to in the article. For instance, the article mentions "wahhabism" as a theory and not exclusively people who are wahhabists.Readers of the article might want to know both about the theory or people who adhere to it. The same goes with the rest. I'm currently looking at if your tag 'Kosovo Muslims' is consistent and relevant for the article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this is a content dispute; in the future, things like this should go to a forum like WP:THIRDOPINION first, not here. But since we're already here, I'll give you my opinion. Looking at this diff, for the most part the tags on Zoupon's version make more sense the the other cats. This article is about a person, and thus person-oriented tags are more appropriate (e.g., "Wahhabists" vs. "Wahhabism." A tag like "Wahhabism" would be entirely appropriate if this person was an influential figure in Wahhabism as a school of thought, but not so much if they are simply an adherent. OhNoitsJamie 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi,Ohnoitsjamie, it concerns the following part; 'In August 2014 Kosovo mobilized to fight religious radicalism, also referred to as "wahhabism" and "radical Islamism", and terrorism by arresting around forty citizens who were suspected of engaging in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) I thought this conversation was about categories; I'm not sure what point you're making with this quote. (2) Please take this discussion back to the article's talk page where it belongs. OhNoitsJamie 16:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It is (was?). I seriously believe that further discussion between the two of us will lead nowhere. It is now obvious that the user has ownership issues. See this revert of copyediting.--Zoupan 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverted versions was also an over - write but I've changed to the 'wahabists'. I have no ownership - issues whatsoever, as one can see I welcome co - editors.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

But you just reverted Ohnoitsjamie... Need I say more?--Zoupan 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this sort of dispute is exactly what the WP:THIRDOPINION dispute resolution process is designed for. Mike1901 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That may have been the case. But now we're here, and the third opinion was reverted.--Zoupan 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do yourselves a favor and stay away from category arguments. Nobody cares about categories. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously some people do or we wouldn't be here, would we. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that anyone besides Misplaced Pages editors care. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, touché. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

These categories were added by me and other co - editors and I've suggested that the discussion would be on the talk page so that other co - editors could partake. One can compare with the previous versions prior to today User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion between the two of us went nowhere. Since the user has been warned, I would also like to ask if this revert of copy-editing is appropriate?--Zoupan 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

...Lavdrim Muhaxheri was 9 years old during the Kosovo War. Should he be included in the "People of the Kosovo War" category? KewinRozz insists.--Zoupan 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now getting seriously annoying. Please take a look at the user's replies at the article talk page.--Zoupan 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior by experienced editor Alexikoua

I believe there's a glaring discrepancy between what you'd expect from someone who's been an editor for more than 7 years, and how Alexikoua (talk · contribs) behaves, especially concerning intellectual honesty. I made an edit (explained here and here) since this was the only way for me to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing this specific issue. I subsequently pinged Alexikoua to make sure he understood why I made these edits. Not a single time did he discuss the issue on the appropriate section on the talk page during this period (my post still stands as the most recent one here), but this has not stopped him from reverting, again, again, again, and again. His reasons for reverting in chronological order are:

1. He claims removing "in Albania" is disruptive
2. Accuses me of violating "DRN procedure" and threatens to report me
3. He implies the issue has been settled because it's been "refuted in all noticeboards (DRN etc)"
4. He states that "all noticeboards disagreed with this removal" (my removals of "in Albania")
5. He states that it has been "ignored in DRN & all noticeboards"

I will get back to points 1-4 (point 5 speaks for itself), but first some background (who's Kone?)

Why is Alexikoua insisting on adding "in Albania"? Because by adding "in Albania", it leads the reader to believe that Kone did not mean "Albanian origin", and Alexikoua has already decided that the latter is not possible (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:

• The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania".
• Eventhough two neutral editors claimed that Kone declared in his press release that he was of "Albanian ancestry" (here and here), Alexikoua insists that it could also mean "originating in Albania" (see the pattern?). Noitce how Alexikoua gets accused of distorting Kone's own saying. I'd argue that this isn't the first time Alexikoua distorts Kone's words (compare translations he did in 2014 vs 2015). The addition of "whether in Albanian or not" is important because it allowed him to argue that "all relatives are greek independent of where they live, and parents are relatives too, thus Kone's ethnic greek".

With regards to point 1 raised earlier, I'll let the admins decide. As for point 2, at that point, the DRN was closed, so it's beyond me how he can accuse me of violating DRN procedure. And finally, points 3 & 4 are downright dishonest. To refute means "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge." The DRN, which was closed due to no one volunteering, can be found here. Notice that in his summary of dispute Alexikoua never addressed the specific point which he argues was refuted. As for being refuted on other noticeboards, that's simply not true either. I welcome Alexikoua to present diffs where these points have been refuted on noticeboards. Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications (never mind that he doesn't discuss it on the talk page).

Alexikoua resorts to ad hominem and accuses me of "usual trolling", and again threatens to report me, but this time for "continuous disruption". Notice how he on both occasions doesn't follow through with the report, and on both occasions I am "1 step from being reported". One can only conclude that these are merely attempts to silence the new editor (me).

Shortly after the DRN was closed, I opened a RfC. Alexikoua stops by and accuses me of manipulating available material. Apart from the fact that it's disruptive to "crash" someone's RfC like that, the accusations he make's have no merit whatsoever. This is evident from the fact that the concerns I raised on the RfC concerning unsupported claims about Kone's ethnic background have now been remedied through consensus.

I even warned Alexikoua, but he didn't hesitate to remove it.

I believe an administrator could look at all of this, and say "tl:dr, new user vs old user, this is a content dispute, will not get involved". I'd argue that this is the easy way out. At least ask Alexikoua to provide some form of evidence for points 3-4. Ask him about point 5 (is this even a legitimate reason for reverting?). Ask him why he ignores to discuss the issue on the talk page. Ask him why he's accused me of trolling. My closing statement will be a straightforward question to the administrators: provided what I present here is true, would you say that the actions of Alexikoua are in line with the policies of Misplaced Pages with regards to intellectual honesty? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A short note on one point: removing a warning is entirely acceptable; the only thing not allowed to be removed is a declined unblock request during the duration of the block in question. Removing a warning is considered the same thing as saying "I've read it". Don't have knowledge to dig into the rest here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's not acceptable. However, if you look at his reason for removing it, it reads "tag misuse". My intention was just to show that there is a pattern on behavior that's not allowing us to move forward with the issue. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is a rather desperate report by DevilsWB simply because he fails to wp:OWN the specific article & more precisely to remove a tiny part ]. Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic ] he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens.

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor ]]) due to disruption in this article & he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka (] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor ]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

The "third party" user would be User:Zoupan? He easily qualifies as neutral here as much as I or User:Athenean do. You're welcome to present a topic where he took a stance or voted against you or Athenean. So much for the canvass that you try to accuse DevilWB.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread ] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap ]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as User:Alexikoua tries to divert attention out of the article itself, DevilWB is right about the content:

The Italian sources which are the most neutral in this case clearly state di origine Albanese (Kone è di origine albanese ma di nazionalità greca) (greco di origine albanese) - a fragment coming out of his word int the press-conference in Italy - and not "of origin in Albania" as Alexikoua tries to push.

Still related to the content, I made some edits in order to stop any edit-warring and placed all Greek sources along with Albanian and Italian ones. But the Greek text is a mistranslation of the original Italian text ma sono Greco (but am Greek) using probably Google Translate ending by mistake in "but they are Greeks" which would be "ma sono Greci". You are welcomed to ping any native Italian user and ask for an opinion, as a matter of fact I will start searching for one. The importance is that by this statement Kone's family comes out to be of Greek origin, going back to Kone as an Albanian of Greek descent. This is the nutshell of all discussions. Instead of categorizing him as Category:Greek people of Albanian descent it came up as Category:Albanian people of Greek descent. It's not the first time Alexikoua pushes these kind of misinterpretations, and I am pretty sure he understands here to error in translation.

It is too bad we have to loose so much time about his "basic ethnicity" which is clearly Albanian and not focus on other topics, just because Alexikoua doesn't like the idea. At the end, Kone made his own choices in life. He states that he "feels Greek" and he "never denied his Albanian origin". That should be sufficient. The rest should be just soccer.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic 89 he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens. Reading this might give you the impression that these neutral "third party users" (not sure if he meant users or user) decided to step in and lecture me about the problematic nature of my arguments. No, that's not what happened. What really happened, is that one of the users who happened to disagree with me from the get go, explained his position in his dispute summary. It's the same user who later made this statement:

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor ]]) due to disruption in this article

I started editing under my IP-address, and decided to create an account shortly after, but I never hid the connection Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing, but what Alexikoua is conveniently hiding is that my unblock request was accepted. Further, I did what I promised to do. I opened a DRN, and during the time it was open I only made two edits to the article: I reverted vandalism, and placed an OR tag (which Alexikoua subsequently reverted). I asked an admin for assistance who agreed with me that the entry was troublesome. I opened a RfC. I never touched the main part that was being disputed (the opening sentence under Personal Life), not once! I finally convinced the "third party user" that the entry was problematic, and he made the necessary adjustments. With regards to the other part that is disputed, i.e. "in Albania", I started editing it after the RfC was opened in order to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing it, because he had until then (and still has) ignored the discussion related to this part on the talk page. It's all in my OP.

he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka (] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor ]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

Notice the lack of evidence here. For what it's worth, when I first made the DRN request, I didn't even include MorenReka , but this was closed by a volunteer since he noticed that MorenReka had made one or two posts on the talk page related to the dispute and his/her participation was thus required. There was never a cooperation between me and MorenaReka, quite the contrary. I told her/him that I preferred to tackle the dispute alone. With regards to Lostrigot, he decided to enter the scene relatively late. But there's no cooperation here either, I agreed with his addition of Kone's origin (something I myself had been arguing for earlier), but I disagreed with his addition of trivia.

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread ] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap ]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How's this relevant? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to recruit people online to join your battles on wikipedia is very relevant, as it is considered very disruptive. So I'm going to ask you point-blank: Is this you? Athenean (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's called Stealth Canvassing: "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" and/or Meat Puppetry: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate.", and both are clear violations of Misplaced Pages policy. In my eyes this is more egregious than the content dispute.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. However, I was a new user (only days old). I did not know the policies of wikipedia. If it's sanctionable, so be it. For the record, here's a similar request I made to an editor: . I always had good intentions, I wanted to make something right that I knew was wrong. Also, this shouldn't be a reason to dismiss everything I presented about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: This is not a content dispute, but rather about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Misplaced Pages:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part This is so bizarre. The DRN statement you speak of was from another party involved in the dispute. It's as if I would accuse you of ignoring my DRN statements, or Resnjari's comments. The DRN was closed, there were no volunteers. I didn't edit during the DRN (apart from the edits I made explained above). The end. It's all in my OP. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Misplaced Pages:Don't shoot yourself in the foot I have already admitted to "meatpuppery" (see post above), but there were no attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. I don't think I even knew what sock accounts were then. But, honestly, whatever. I'm not even surprised anymore. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Misplaced Pages policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. Also the tone of the reddit post makes assuming good faith impossible, as the intent was clearly laid out. The bottom line is that this type of behavior is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not you are right. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". This is absolutely false and the fact that you'd say this makes me question your motives here. The heart of his "disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" is the fact that he repeatedly reverted me without discussing the issue (why am I obligated to discuss, and he's not?), and that the reasons given in his edit summaries are incredibly dishonest. Or do you agree with him that my edit was "refuted on all noticeboards" or that "all noticeboards disagreed" with my edit? Like I wrote in my OP: Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications. Do you think it's OK to revert without discussing the issue and justify reversions with lies and half-truths? Do you think it's OK to accuse someone of trolling? Do you think it's OK drop a comment like he did on the RfC? I look forward to you answering these questions. Moreover, I'd love to hear what parts of my posts involve "proffering evidence that my content is correct". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Misplaced Pages policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. By what time? The post on reddit was written a couple of days after I started editing on wikipedia (2 or 3 perhaps). That was one month ago. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not false. To avoid large blocks of text I will refrain from long quotes, but I will offer this one from your first post. "The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania"." This is a content issue. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. And the phrase "By this time" means just that, right now when you expressed your ignorance as to why your previous actions, which were disruptive and directly against policy, would be relevant. Even if you didn't know then, you should absolutely have known by now, and you should understand why they are extremely relevant. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is demonstrably false. There's an important sentence preceding the one you bring up: "This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:". It's not about the content per se, but about the pattern of dishonest behavior. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to interpret this the way Alexikoua does, and if there's any ambiguity as to why he does it: the other material I put fourth (originating in/from Albania) certainly paints a picture. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. The "evidence" that I am recruiting "long term socks" pales in comparison to the evidence I've presented with regards to his dishonest and disruptive behavior, but it seems like you don't give a rats ass about that part. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. Months, or month? No agenda here, right? I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. I have recognized them. Your focus this entire time has been on me, and only on one side of the story. You don't condone his actions, but you've been very cautious to not condemn them either. You didn't even answer my questions concerning his behavior. Him being blatantly dishonest doesn't depend on my existence. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@UnequivocalAmbivalence:, this discussion was not raised to decide if User:Alexikoua is a good or a bad guy, but rather his behavior towards an article. All this is getting too long. User:DevilWB accuses him "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" related to the Kone's article. It has to be seen in the article's context. DevilWB is also taking responsibility for his actions, and not denying anything. Can you please also take a moment to consider if DevilWB is right or not about Alexikoua's behavior in this case? It's not a content issue but user's behavior towards the article's content issue. For what you are saying seems like an editor can do whatever he/she wants with an article as long as the other side is a potential subject to WP:SHOT. By the way, WP:SHOT says There is no "immunity" for reporters, it does not state that the initial topic of the report should be ignored based on a weighting system of who is more culpable. It's not a tool for scaring reporters, but for making sure there are no exceptions to rules. --Mondiad (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for administrator intervention regarding personal attack

Hi,

User @El Alternativo has resorted to personal attacks even after been asked to stop doing so.

Evidence on the matter:

• on this diff he calls me "juveline",
• on this other diff he calls me an "estadista" (someone who supports the statehood movement in Puerto Rico),
• on that same diff accuses me of patronizing him, and
• on that same diff claims that I'm somehow throwing jabs at him.

I have tried to remain civil but considering the continuous personal attacks on my person I would like to request intervention from an administrator.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Curious how the OP forgets to mention that I actually requested for the confrontations to cease and cooperate in editing the article in peace during the same edit. Anyways, is any of this even remotely close to being considered a "personal attack"? Saying "juvenile" when referencing a tag that was apparently added due to a revert is hardly an attack. And saying that his edit pattern would allow for a better attack since he is an apparent estadista is like saying it would allow for a better attack since he is democrat or republican. The reaction is way overblown. El Alternativo (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• But since we are here, I would like a take on the OP taking the source that I added to the article (my attempt to deal with his concerns) directly to the RS noticeboard without even asking me to prove it as reliable, and misrepresenting it as a strictly "pro-independence and socialist" source despite likely knowing, given his constant work on articles related to local politics, that the ideological range of the authors is varied and even includes people that belong to a centrist party. As noted in my rebuttal, this moves seems way undue and exaggerated to the point that I suspect a vindictive motivation, since he could have discussed the reliability of the source and I would have cited the same about PhDs and mainstream journalists, yet opted to take it all the way to the RS noticeboard, tag the article and leave me a note noting how he felt that I was being incivil for saying the word "juvenile". It seems to me that the OP may be abusing the RS noticeboard and he is most likely abusing this one. And since he is also actively engaged in a move war at Ricky Rosselló, I feel compelled to question if he is letting his passion of local politics get the better of him in his interactions with other users. El Alternativo (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not distort what I said. I never said that 80grados was "strictly" pro-independence and socialist. I said that it is a publication "with socialist and Puerto Rican pro-independence tendencies." Please stop twisting my words. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Excluding that other authors diverge from the posture that you adjudicate to the source, despite likely knowing beforehand, makes it voluntary omission. And since you took the reference to the RS noticeboard and tagged it as "failing verification" before the matter was disputed, and also before trying to engage me (if you can call posting a "warning" an attempt to engage), it seems quite clear that your intention was to defeat my posture before even discussing it, perhaps because you were offended that I called one of your actions juvenile. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Kindly notice that the personal attacks persist. On this diff the user is now claiming that I am "pursuing some sort of vindictive retribution" against him. Can an admin please intervene? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I already mentioned and linked that above. How does that constitute a "personal" attack? It is just a note of the way that I perceive this sort of behavior. The only one of us that has actually tried to drop the one-sided conflict has been me by suggesting that you reconsider the overly-sensitive approach and I even took the first step by inserting your language in the article. Conversely, you did nothing to discuss the source's reliability with me; instead opting to take it there and tagging it. Given your edit history, it is likely that you know that it passes as a RS simply due to the notability and work of its authors within the mainstream. El Alternativo (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OSMOND PHILLIPS

OSMOND PHILLIPS showed up several months ago, and most or all of his edits have involved adding a group of nineteenth-century American pictures to biographies of nineteenth-century Americans. However, these images have problems, and he persists, as seen in particular at Talk:Billy the Kid#Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall. He claims that each one depicts so-and-so, but aside from the lack of evidence for that, some of his additions conflict with reliable sources, e.g. at Talk:BTK, claiming that File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg (derived from his upload) is the same guy as , which has here been uploaded as File:John Tunstall seated pose cropped and retouched.jpg.

Moreover, the images he's uploading come from The Phillips Collection, part of an online magazine that admits that it has no provenance for any of these images — it's just some magazine that found them in an antiques shop, and some months ago he said that he is "THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION". He routinely says "they're confirmed by professionals" or "they're supported by researcher ", e.g. and , and his userpage (speedy-deleted as U5, but identical to his Commons userpage) is filled with unsourced claims that he expects us to trust, but he repeatedly fails to provide evidence that would give anyone here reason to trust his claims. There's no evidence that these claims these are authentic, no evidence that these images can be trusted, and no way to verify his claims that they're the people he says they are, but he edit-wars to ensure that they remain (reverted here, with more reversions at ; and reverting multiple people at ).

And finally, consider his conflict of interest: we don't tolerate people who promote their own organisations by dumping lots of their stuff into articles (e.g. , with nine of his uploads) and edit-warring to defend that stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We routinely block accounts who are here only for advertising and/or promotion. This seems like he's here only for promotion. Katie 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that I'd block the guy myself but I've edited Billy the Kid rather extensively. Katie 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, the issue of the images added by PHILLIPS is already being discussed on Commons here, a discussion you are already part of. PHILLIPS has offered to provide a "check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person." That discussion is ongoing.

Your insistence that PHILLIPS states the photos have no provenance is a red herring. The full title of the the web page you linked to stating the images do not have provenance is "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance". The substance of the discussion ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors, but whether EN:WP editors are willing to take advantage of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods. This issue is part of that discussion on Commons. As noted there, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. They are running into the same disbelief here on wn:wp that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

Nyttend, on Commons you state, "discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there." So why do you propose here on en:wp to engage in a discussion of the images' and PHILLIPS' credibility when the images are on Commons, and that conversation is already being had there? You can't have it both ways: insist that en:wp and Commons are independent, and suggest that PHILLIPS be blocked here for images they added there.

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. WP is bleeding editors and fewer and fewer people are contributing. I have been acquainted with a number of exceedingly worthy editors who have abandoned WP due to harassment and uncivil behavior. I believe the multiple attempts to remove his images and his account here, here, and on this page border on uncivil.

Experts on WP are especially few and far between. The Old West Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through the halls. Since PHILLIPS is a professional and business owner, I get the impression they don't watch WP like a hawk as some editors do and may not respond to these concerns as quickly as some might prefer. Following the principle of don't bite the newcomer, I think it would be extremely premature and contrary to good faith to block him at this time.

I agree that PHILLIPS has reverted edits made by others when they should not. I attribute this in part to the fact the they are a newcomer and likely unfamiliar with WP's byzantine methods of conduct, its dozens of pages of policy, its dozens of policies and procedures, and WP's 5000 word long Five Pillars. Let's try to remember that some people actually live a full life without checking WP daily for comments on their contributions. I suggest a cooling down period and allow PHILLIPS to provide any evidence they have about the images that support their contention that they are of the individuals named.

In any case, the discussion here on en:wp ought to be restricted to whether PHILLIPS is engaged in promoting their business. They appear to be trying to contribute potentially informative and revealing images about a number of Old West figures. I don't see how their business benefits if PHILLIPS is releasing images into the public domain. — btphelps 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not merely that PHILLIPS is promoting his business: that's one problem, but as well, he's repeatedly adding images to articles that fail our verifiability and copyright standards. Uploading bad images to Commons isn't reason for sanctions here, but using bad images in violation of our standards is reason for sanctions. Moreover, note that PHILLIPS' website has lots of ads: making his collection more prominent through Misplaced Pages will obviously increase the number of people viewing the website, increasing ad revenue. We already sanction people when they attempt to promote nonprofits or personal websites; attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily." True. It that is, indeed, the case. And it's proven to be so. I'm not very comfortable with what seems to be a real lack of good faith and biting going on here. If that isn't what's intended, I'd love to see someone say that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that has concerned me since I first saw the Phillips site is whether, if this were text, it would be considered a reliable source. After reading the contents of "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" pages linked above—the text written by Catherine Briley—I was left feeling very uncomfortable as to the reliability of the site and thus the images being presented. Mr. and Mrs. Owner buys photos, they suspect (but do not know) that it was collected by Phillips based on photos that they think may be of the Phillips family mixed in with the photos that they believed to be of rather more famous Old West individuals. I've never seen a similar chain of guess and surmise being allowed before on Misplaced Pages: these are basic verifiability issues. And if the source isn't deemed sufficiently reliable, how can photos from it be deemed reliable, and especially as the photos themselves do not appear to have been marked as to the subject, but are apparently being classified by eye, including Mrs. Owner's artistic eye. Putting a definite name to a photo that isn't self-identified on the original is an extraordinary claim, and I don't think there has been adequate support/documentation to justify those claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits I reverted was only the photos. If I am not allowed to revert how can they be allowed to remove the photo. I am doing the same action as the person who removed them. Yes, I am a newcomer and have a lot to learn. Is it okay thatNyttend decided for himself to remove all of the photos? Should he be warned, temporarily banned? Put up for deletion like me? I don't know the rules as yet. He made the decision to remove all of the photos for all of us.

The Phillips Collection has nothing to do with the online magazine texasescapes as Nyttend states. All of the ads are on texasescapes. We receive no money from advertising from their online magazine. The editor believes in the photos and allowed us to write articles there to starting getting the collection known. We have made strides in research identification since then. The collection was originally collected from the 1890's to the 1930's we have evidence that proves this. The collection has gangsters from the 1930's and then stops collecting. We have NOT uploaded any photos to wiki that are after 1923. The oldest photos on Wiki is circa 1900. There were not as many publicized outlaws after that until the 1920's. The current owners of the collection purchased it in the mid to late 1990's. So it is not a recent find as they have had it for around 20 years. The collection is over 85 years old. They knew what they had but didn't know what to do with it. I was hired to have it researched and promoted if the research proved to be positive.

Photo's have been deleted when I first came to wiki because I was new and didn't even know they were up for deletion. I would not have known how to support them at that time. I submitted the Philips Collection resume of professionals and family descendants research on my user pages not knowing where to put it. Users against these photos were quick to remove the photos and the resume list. The same users are against the professionals stating that they aren't professionals. Yet these professionals get paid for their experience. We use professionals in the study of Photography, Victorian clothing, Historians and Forensic Arts. The forensics used, is the same forensics used to convict or prove the innocence in our court of law. Would these same users against the photos decide not to use the same forensics that may keep them out of jail? It doesn't matter what I put on here these same users will fight these photos. Nothing I can say will be good enough. That will be easily proved in reply's to this comment.

The majority of people believe that the Billy The Kid croquet photo is of BTK and others without provenance. Should people decide for us what we can see or what we should believe in. These users do not want anyone to see these photos and make up their own mind whether they are of the person or not and whether the public can see them and decide for themselves. These users are throwing away history. It is not for them to decide. To stop these photos they have put me up for deletion. So they will use any means to keep our history from being shared with the public. There is almost hundred photos that we are working on now to provide to wiki administrators the type of photo and the photography stamp information. We will need a little time. These users will try to have me removed before I can submit the information. I will be adding a long check list of the processes we go through with professionals to identify each person claimed in the collection. Last on the list is forensic analysis on higher profile people. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I realized that our checklist would be scrutinized just like our resume of professional people researching these photos. So I am going to walk you through the analysis of this photo we believe to be of Virgil Earp and his daughter Nellie Jane. I am sure the following will be picked at as well. Regardless of the research.

This is a cabinet card photograph. Cabinet cards were first seen in the mid 1860's and continued to circa 1900. The cabinet card is easily recognized because of the size which is around 4 1/4 by 6 1/2 inches. The style of the photography stamp whether printed or cursive, type, weight and color of paper, gold trimmed, scalloped or plain edges can help you narrow down the long years of the cabinet cards popularity. Along with decorative borders, color of ink, and back stamps. More information can be found on Wiki here. https://en.wikipedia.org/Cabinet_card The photography stamp is WL Latour, 11 Main St. Joplin, Mo. There is plenty of information on the internet about Latour. Wiliam Latour learned the trade at age 11. He studied the daguerreian photography art under the tutelage of Augustus Plitt, one of the St. Louis' most respected artists. From his instructor, he also learned ambrotyping and the aesthetics of photography, etc. He was known to have a business in Sedalia and Joplin, MO. One of the sites with this information is http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2356& Another site states he quit the business circa 1900. This information tells us he was in business while Virgil was alive. The style of the cabinet card and later business years works with Virgil's age. When we cannot find information on the photographer we look in the census records to see when he was in the area and what his occupation was. The writing on the back states "To Alice from Josie" It is believed to be the handwriting of Josephine Earp. We have another photo of one of the Earp's with the same writing style. Examples of her writing can easily be found on the internet. Her writing changed as she got older. We also have a photo of Josie on her horse and her writing on the back about her favorite pal. Virgil had a niece named Alice. She was the daughter of Newton Jasper from Nicholas's first wife. This can be found on Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3164. Evidence shows that it could be indeed Josephine and Alice of the Earp family. Virgil died in 1905 at the age of 62. This can be found at a reliable source called Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/Virgil_Earp Its also states that Virgil had a daughter Nellie Jane that he wasn't aware of until 1898. He visited her the next year and obviously other places. We have had, as an example, people say Virgil never was known to be in Joplin. We have found by these photography stamps that if the person wasn't good or bad and made the local paper or signed documents etc, you cant really say they was never there under most circumstances. Some of the photo stamps do match the area the person was known to be in at the time. A picture of Nellie Jane can be found on Find a Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40289053. Photos on Find a Grave can usually be trusted because most are uploaded by descendants. This is one of the places where we find family members and get their opinion on our photos. The photo of Nellie Jane matches well along with another photo we have of her taken in CA. Anytime you can identify additional people in the photograph it increases the probability tremendously. Virgil was shot in the left arm and lost the use of it. That is what historians believe. His elbow was damaged and completely or partially removed. Could Virgil actually be able to bend his arm like in the photo? We found another photo owned by Craig Fouts of Virgil, his wife Allie and John Clum. Virgil's left arm is bent in both photos. Whether he had some use in his arm or he used his other hand to place it. The photo shows he could. Fouts is a known collector of historic old west photographs and is well respected. His photos of the Earp's are in all the Earp related books and Wiki. If this photo was a tintype we would know that a tintype is a reversed image of itself. Like looking in a mirror. We would know that Virgil's left arm that is shown bent is really his right arm. Virgil Earp's ears are distinguished. He has long ear lobes as does some of his brothers. He likely got them from his mothers side as Nicholas's lobes are not as long. More can be said about Virgil's facial features and hair but the ears are the best indicator as they do not change with the exception of the lobe getting longer at times. The clothing fits the era. Nellie dress style is correct for the late 1890's along with the color of it. Earlier dresses were dark unless it was a graduation or another special occasion. Wedding dresses were typically not white either. Nellie's rolled back hair style was only popular in the 1890's. Virgil's suit and his removable collar that would be stored in a collar box was still used in that era. Several styles of these 1890 and early 1900's collars can be seen on the internet. We also check for jewelry, like Nellie's wedding ring to see when she married and does it work with the photographers years in business. We study the age difference between Virgil and his daughter. Whether Virgil is wearing a wedding ring or not. Virgil never married Allie but she was his common law wife. We look for moles, scars and any other identifying permanent marks. We try to find descendants, contact museums who has information on the individual. We contact authors and historians. We search old newspapers for information like this site Chronicling America by the Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/. We have joined ancestry sites to study their family trees to find clues of who the names are on the back of the photo if it isn't of the person photographed. Most photos have the names of family or friends that they are sending it to. Some of our photos do have their names on the back of the person photographed. Finally we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis. We only do this analysis on higher profile people because of the cost. We have not done Virgil's forensics yet, but we will. This information tells us that this is a circa 1900's cabinet card with the photography studio being in business during Virgil's later years. He is photographed with his daughter. Both are wearing the correct period clothing of the time. The cabinet card has the later color of grey with an embossed decorative pattern. The script is cursive and is appropriate for the time. The ink in the photo is the typical rich soft tones used in the later years of the cabinet cards. The writing on the back has known family names. We have around thirty photos of the Earp family members which enables us to compare with, even though they are unauthenticated. Many are with other family members. All of this information in a court of law would be enough to confirm their identity even without forensic facial analysis. Yet it is not good enough for some of the Wiki editors who want to stop all photos without a chain of provenance. It should not be up to a few, to keep the interested public away from such important history. How many of Abraham Lincolns photos have no provenance. Yes, he is easily recognized. Just because someone does not have the experience or talent to identify photographs does not mean the photo should be withheld. This photo was on Virgil's Wiki page to share with old west enthusiasts but was removed. I will be adding comparison photos soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:COI. Nuff said? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, for Misplaced Pages. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But also, arguably, Here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that, as and when the copyright issues are sorted out over at Wikimedia, it might possibly be reasonable to use some of these images, with suitable prominent caveats and subject of course to individual discussion on talk pages. A hint to OSMOND PHILLIPS: we would need checkable versions of the arguments for authenticity of each and every picture. Banning strikes me as counterproductive. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Like one person mentioned. The owners artist eye could not be used for identification. The owner who found this collection in an antique mall had the artistic experience to recognize the possible faces of these outlaws and lawmen. Therefore saving this collection and adding to an important part of our history, This is the resume of one of our Forensic artists. Her art skills are considered an advantage to helping her with forensics making her one of the top forensic experts.

OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof? Once again, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; dumping someone's resume here, without evidence, is no basis. You have, however, given us proof that you're relying on original research to make your decisions. Continued agency and promotion on behalf of your business, together with persistent original research and edit-warring against people who enforce our policies, means that you need to start editing in completely different fields if you want to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm a little unclear about how you come to the conclusion that PHILLIPS is engaged in OR when they attempted to add the very specific procedures they go through to validate the authenticity of an image. For reasons I can't fathom, Robert McClenon labeled this edit as disruptive, removed the edit, and warned PHILLIPS that he could be blocked for his actions. Nyttend, you're saying they are making this stuff out of thin air, when they are trying to provide substantial information on the experts they've used.

I'm at a loss as to how PHILLIPS can provide substantive evidence of their methods for authenticating the photos, which those clamoring for removal of the photos are demanding, when he is blocked from doing so because it constitutes promotion. I am not getting any sense that several of the editors hot on PHILLIPS' trail want to work with them to resolve this, but are determined to delete his images and boot him off WP.

I noticed that Robert McClenon and Dat Guy believe that PHILLIPS' additions to this page constitute self promotion and vandalism. I encourage fellow editors to try to give OSMOND PHILLIPS some allowances. They have been a WP editor since July 1 and are still a newbie. They were attempting to provide a list of the methods that they have used to authenticate the photos that are the subject of the ANI discussion. They don't know the rules and policies of WP. Allow a little bit of good faith.

Gentleman and Ladies, unless we can back off a bit and give PHILLPS a little time and room as an amateur contributor to WP to figure out if there's a way these photos can be authenticated, I fear that these actions will continue to showcase WP's hard ass attitude towards newcomers and reinforce why new editors don't stay. Is anyone up for a little patience and moderation? — btphelps 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First, while I understand assume good faith, I will point out to User:Btphelps that assume good faith has limits. It is not clear that the editor in question is an amateur contributor. They are promoting their business. Rather than lecturing other editors, why don't you reason with this editor whose enthusiasm (maybe commercial enthusiasm) is being disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say to OSMOND/PHILLIPS COLLECTION that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. I'm seeing blatant advertising and it sure sounds like hornswoggle to me. These extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand why I consider it original research, consider the definition of original research: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. You've produced a large group of portraits without any provenance: as far as you know, nothing's been said about their subjects in any way whatsoever (let alone being said in reliable, published sources), so you know nothing about these images other than certain facts (e.g. the photographic techniques and elements visible in the pictures), from which you perform research such as examining clothing, conducting handwriting analysis, examining jewellery, and identifying locations. Or consider WP:SYNTH (a section of the original research policy, which says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

Saying "this is a daguerrotype; that one has Uncle Lu written on the back; the other one was taken by a photographer active from 1850 to 1890" is fine, but "because of those facts, we know that this is John Doe" is original synthesis. And finally, on the evidence issue: do we have any online reliable sources that speak about these experts authenticating these images? Are there any articles of this sort in reliable print sources? All we're being given is claims that so-and-so said such-and-such: anyone can make such claims without any difficulty, so there's no reason to believe these claims without backup from independent sources. We're being told that OSMOND PHILLIPS has all these qualifications, too; read Essjay controversy to see a prominent past example of what can happen when people rely on an editor's claimed-but-not-proven personal qualifications. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The research process used to identify these photos is the same process that was used to identify Billy the Kid's croquet photo. That photo is well represented on Billy The Kid's page. It states, "The image was reviewed by experts on Old West history in order to authenticate it. On October 5, 2015, Kagin's, Inc., a California-based numismatic authentication firm, verified the image to be authentic after a number of experts had examined it for over a year. A special show describing the examination of the photo was shown on the National Geographic Channel on October 23, 2015. Other experts do not believe that the photo shows Billy the Kid or the Regulators." Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today PHILLIPS, in response to other editors' requests that they prove that the images they have added are genuine and not a mere attempt to promote a business, attempted to add a list of the procedures they engage in to validate and authenticate the images. DatGuy apparently took a hasty look at it, perceived it to be vandalism, reverted it, and immediately fired off a Level 3 notice to PHILLIPS warning him that he could be blocked. Given that PHILLIPS is a newbie, I believe this was excessive and bitey.

Editors have challenged PHILLIPS statements about the authenticity of the images and accused him of engaging in original research. Their reply was an attempt to answer those accusations. They state they are relying on considerable outside experts (and, in overkill, posted the entire resume of a university professor and expert) whose paid work evidently supports PHILLIPS' belief that the images are authentic. It was NOT an attempt to promote their business, but a direct response to the challenges made by other editors about the nature and conduct of their business. To further the discussion, I am reposting these steps below:

Method used to verify the identity of the historical people in the Phillips Collection of Old West photographs: (as provided by PHILLIPS here)

1. Style of photo: We thoroughly studied the history of the historical person and created timelines of their lives. Getting to know our subjects involved buying and reading biographies, buying old western books, reading books through interlibrary loan, internet research, reaching out to Universities and museums, and poring over old newspapers. It also involved reaching out to living descendants. All of this was in an effort to know the subject’s whereabouts and to verify that were of the correct age to match the style of the photo. The photos in the Phillips Collection range from the 1860’s to the 1930’s and include a majority of cabinet cards but also tintypes, CDVs, daguerreotypes, and one glass negative. Tintypes (or ferrotypes) arrived around 1856, and were generally popular from 1860 to 1870. But, they were made in some portions of the country until the 1890’s even though that was more of a rare occurrence. CDV (Carte de visite) photos are small photos placed on a thin card material that typically measure 2 3/8 inches by 4 inches. They arrived about 1859 and were most popular from 1860 to 1880, but were known to be made up until the late 1890’s, but this was certainly not common. Cabinet cards appeared around 1866, and were most popular from 1875 to 1900, but lasted into the new century for a few years. These photographs can vary greatly in size, style, and color. Cabinet cards can be further dated by the decoration on the card or the lack thereof. Photos from the 1870’s were often mounted on plain brown thinner-stock cards and lacked any identification as to the photographer. However, that was not always the case. Some photographers opted to spend the extra money for a more decorative card. That completely changed in the 1880’s with the name of the photographer routinely either on the front or back, or both, in decorative script. By the 1890’s, cards were even more decorative and sometimes the edges of the cards were decorative.
2. Clothing: We verified that the clothing of the subject was historically accurate. This involved researching books on historical clothing and fashion, internet searches, and involving experts.
3. Photographer: The photographers were researched using various sources. These sources include: census records, internet searches (there are several websites dedicated to providing information about 19th century photographers and when they were in operation), researching old newspapers for ads or stories, genealogical websites, Google books, contacting historical societies, museums, contacting descendants, etc. Once we knew the timespan that the photographer was in business, it was compared with the subject’s life timeline to verify that they could have been there.
4. Handwriting: Some of the photos have handwriting. If available, handwriting was compared to handwriting samples.
5. Other people: If there was more than one person in the photo, positively identifying the other person(s) in the photo as a friend, relative, spouse, or child makes it far more likely that they are the historical figure.
6. Descendants: Reached out to descendants of the historical people to have identity further verified. Often relatives have photos that are not available online to use for comparison purposes.
7. Museums: Contacted museums to verify identity of subject. Again, museums often have comparison photos not readily available elsewhere. They also have experts who can aid in identification.
8. Jewelry: Some ornamentation worn by the subject in an authenticated comparison photo is visible in Phillips Collection photos, adding to the verification.
9. Other physical identification marks used in comparison: Scars, hairlines, shape of ears, shape of eyebrows, shape of lips, shape of nose, etc. We also compared body type and size. Learning the history of the subject’s was very useful in this method because physical descriptions were often given in old accounts of the subject. For example, it was reported that Doc Holliday was blond but was going bald towards the end of his life. We verified the loss of hair for the Phillips Collection photos of Doc Holliday.
10. Location: For some of the photos that were not studio taken, the physical location is visible behind the subject. We did research on those locations. For example, for the Billy the Kid in New Mexico photo, we made two seperate trips driving 14 hours to locate the rock he was sitting on and matched up the mountain range in the background.
11. In some instances, the name of the person is written directly on the photo. The collection has a photo with “Uncle Lu” and other information written on the back, which is a photo gangster Lucky Luciano.
12. Forensic testing. The Phillips Collection contains nearly 500 photographs and one glass negative. We believe that the collection was amassed over several decades. The collector was very thorough; he collected not only historical figures but their families as well, and/or the various people involved in a historical conflict. I can give two examples.

• The collection not only has three photos of Billy the Kid, but also nearly 50 photos of the players in the Lincoln County War and their family members.
• The collection has not only Wyatt Earp, but nearly 70 photos of the people involved in the events surrounding the shootout at Tombstone and their family members. When it is noted how many photos the collection has of a historical person, and also the people closest to them, it increases the likelihood that the photos were collected directly from family members. Criticism has been directed at the collection as being just “look-alikes.”

It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

According to PHILLIPS' statement above, "we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis." So in addition to the research they conduct, they engage experts. The photographs have not been published before because they are only recently authenticated, as described above.

It should be noted that these images have apparently never been published before. PHILLIPS provided via OTRS on Commons a copy of the contract designating him is the legal representative for the owner of these images. WP policy allows owners to release their images to public domain.

— btphelps 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mess. OSMOND PHILLIPS gives us a longwinded proof that this photo is a genuine image of Virgil Earp. Sadly, he has flubbed even the most basic research. The image in question was not taken by William Latour, but by one of his sons. Judging from the mounting used, it is likely later than 1905. It may be Virgil Earp, but it most probably isn't. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate, after all the talk about forensics and proof, that such basic errors are being made. Throughout, OSMOND PHILLIPS has compared his images with the recent croquet photo that was featured on television: Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. There is no magic conveyance of provenance from the one photo to this collection's five hundred. Every photo is its own puzzle to unravel, and the resources put into attempting to verify the croquet photo were quite large. I would be surprised indeed if equivalent resources had been lavished on every photo in the "Phillips Collection". Then there's this extraordinary claim: It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. Each photo looks exactly like these outlaws and lawmen, when even the published side-by-sides are in many cases not even close to the naked eye. I don't see how we can trust that the names that have been attached to these photos are accurate with these sorts of extraordinary claims, absent equally extraordinary evidence. Even if an image is pre-copyright, how can it be usable without real proof of who the image represents? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Attitude issues at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

The video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain was the topic of some contoversy, namely the depiction of the character Quiet (see Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain#Sexualized portrayal of Quiet). Over the last couple of months, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page. One particular IP editor (I'm assuming it is one person) is determinated to have as little of the controversy mentioned, and is convinced that who doesn't agree with them is wrong. The article itself is one thing, but this anonymous editor will not listen to reason, or just walk away. This has come to a point where this has to stop.

A message from October 6 reads: "I'm not going to be the one to make more edits at this point, but it's painfully clear people are trying to own the page". Untrue and accusatory, but not particularly a terrible attitude. After a while, they're back on January 8, starting off their new message with "Please put how you feel about it or any emotion you may have about the topic aside when you read the following points". Okay, sounds good. "There are sources and information here that talk about the PlayArtsKai figurine of Quiet. Are you out of your mind?! What relevance does this have to the RECEPTION OF THE GAME???" Taking a bit of a turn there. "To any senior editors, administrators, or anyone with an interest in Misplaced Pages standards. It should be extremely concerning that this level of bias is present in an article that is supposed to be by and large, factual." Extremely concerning? Oh boy.

Well, from that moment on, things got worse. On January 12 there were two messages. The first: "They're just feigning ignorance so they can use wikipedia as a soapbox or personal blog, just like creationsist or other opinion-based groups would. They want this slander to be visible in the table of contents, obviously". Later that day: "You aren't interested in presenting facts, you're interested in putting forward a particular kind of opinion. One that states that EVERYTHING is sexist/sexualized, because you folks obsess over this kind of stuff for no other reason than to be as obnoxious and supremacist as you can".

Today came another post: "Everything is sexist to them, it seems. Really every single thing. They can't even think of a world where something isn't sexist. Therefore, they have no endgame, no solution. The only thing they do is go around and troll/declare everything to be sexist."

All the while, experienced editors like @Peter Isotalo:, @Prisonermonkeys:, @Czar: and myself have pointed towards Misplaced Pages's guidelines on notability, on balanced articles, you name it. Today, @Sergecross73: had to semiprotect the article again, because they will not stop. --Soetermans. T / C 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrss.shourie

Persistent copyright violations. Bazj (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For reference: Mrss.shourie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I just deleted one article that seemed to be a direct copy of one of the linked references. So the concern is a valid one, at least on that front. The user's deleted contributions indicate that this is not their first deleted article - others were deleted in early November 2015. They said, in their edit summary, that they were basing it on references - perhaps there is a language issue at play that prevents them from understanding the issue? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikibreaking personal attacks and WP:FORUMSHOP

• Wikibreaking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has received multiple warnings about civility and personal attacks. The most recent yesterday. Despite being here only a short while, they have engaged in numerous conflicts, including one that resulted in a block for edit warring, and further exhaustive conversations to overturn a deletion at multiple locations. They originally opened multiple deletion reviews for the same AFD and once it was scaled back to only one DRV and the direction of the consensus clearly pointing towards endorse, they've continued to pursue the closer on their talk page and another admin on their talk page. Their conduct at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 17 has been very combative telling editors they "lied" or calling other "annoying unqualified people" or telling them they "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". This editor has also made statements saying they'll "resubmit this petition" because they don't like or agree with the discussion. I also noticed on their talk page that they've essentially re-posted much of the deleted content using their user talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. I see this heading towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Mkdw 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit was at 23:08 on 19 January - otherwise, I'd have blocked immediately for disruption. Their conduct at DRV has been dreadful, and probably got more people endorsing the close than would otherwise have bothered with it. I understand that they clearly feel strongly about the topic, but this isn't how it works here. So, if Wikibreaking is able to assure us that they are going to chill out, edit something else, stop threatening disruption, stop accusing editors of lying, and almost threatening civil action, then they can continue editing. I'm going to issue a final warning now, and ask them to come here and discuss the issue. Or, you know, not, and then they can discuss the block on their talk page. There does not appear to be much middle ground, here. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of refraining from the terms "lied", "annoying unqualified people", "keep on insisting your bullshits anyway". First, they don't sound like personal attacks or insults to me. Second, I was talking facts. If you can't translate the language in the reference I linked, then you are not qualified to judge whether that reference is legitimate or not. Despite being unqualified, if you keep on insisting nonsense, then I am obviously annoyed & I have the right to express such infringement. Also, I obviously shouldn't have to avoid using the term "lying" (or the term bullshits) when you did lie. That's the level of discussion going on right now. I provide legitimate references on legitimate notable topics. My unqualified opponents just keep on insisting "not notable & not legitimate sources" without any indication to a specific detail. This is also why I split my article into 2 separate parts because the later half has ONLY English Google books as references (notable because of being talked about in the books & legitimate references because of being Google books published hundreds years ago). The result? Read the level of shits going on there. They shouldn't have any voice at all in this. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, there is no such thing as "my" article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

When you start talking about "my unqualified opponents", it's usually a sign of a battleground attitude that will just lead you into more conflict and reappearances on this noticeboard, Wikibreaking. This discussion right here is a warning that your behavior has not been acceptable. You can choose to adapt to discussion, Misplaced Pages-style, or you can go on as you have and are likely to run into sanctions. Liz 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that response essentially highlights everything I've pointed out. I don't see this becoming a WP:NETPOS anytime soon. Mkdw 23:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by their last comment Wikibreaking (is that supposed to mean something?) ought to consider improving their grasp of idiomatic English before editing English Misplaced Pages. BMK (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned with this colloquy from the DRV discussion, which, I think, comes perilously close to be a violation of WP:NLT by Wikibreaking:

• You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking appears to be claiming that their "privilege" and "entitlement" has been "unjustly infringed", and that this is a matter for the civil courts. BMK (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this edit is both a legal threat and a claim of article ownership. The user in question needs to be indef'd immediately. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's intended to cause a WP:CHILLINGEFFECT using legal language, which makes it a legal threat; blocked. I'll note that in addition to withdrawing the legal threat they need to have a better understanding of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND before being unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreaking is a problematic editor not only in DRV but also in editing other articles. The user added the same edit rejected as WP:SYNTH by other editors to other article. The user has a lack of grasping what the problem the user is doing and is incompetent in understanding the guidelines. Also, most of Wikibreaking's massive edits in Korean Misplaced Pages have been reverted by other experienced editor.Bulgogi, Gimbap,Taekkyon The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The user should be blocked indefinitely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't tell whether it's a true legal threat or use of legal language to cause a chilling effect, but I'm usually of the opinion that the difference should be academic in practice. "Real" legal threats should result in a block per WP:NLT. "Fake" legal threats should result in a block for disruption, either for a finite length, or until the "fake" legal threat is retracted so as to end the disruptive chilling effect. Generally speaking, some form of sanction is appropriate here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• The user has been blocked for legal threats, but I'd endorse leaving the user blocked because of their overall attitude. They have a serious battleground mentality and the trend I'm seeing is that they're unwilling or unable to assume good faith from other editors if they do not agree with their specific versions/edits. Their userpage, along with the massive amount of content they've added to their talk page, shows that they're almost guaranteed to be brought back to ANI and blocked for their behaviors. Upon being told by multiple editors that they're behaving poorly, their response is to accuse the other editors of lying and being disruptive. I don't think that there's any way that they could collaborate well with others even if we gave them a last chance unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• I tried to raise some of these issues with Wikibreaking and got nowhere. Their writing is aggressive and difficult to understand, but since I don't speak Korean, I was hoping that at least some of the sources were valid, and maybe other editors would be able to get through. Many other editors have tried, and now Phoenix7777 points out that this content has also been widely rejected at the Korean wiki as well, so AGF is exhausted. From their edit history, the user's name is likely a reference to Breaking (martial arts), so that part, at least, shouldn't be seen as a threat. Otherwise this is a constant battleground attitude over confusing and questionable edits, with only token attempts at compromise. Many of the user's edits go through contortions to advanced a pro-Korean and sometimes anti-Japanese POV ( , etc.). There are competence, attitude, and advocacy problems here. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a note, I added a bit to the block notice there noting that it's not just because of the apparent NLT violation that the block became necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yup, support all the above. The user was on notice about his/her combative behavior since 19 January and stuck the fingers in the ears. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mdclxvi0 harrassing User:JesseRafe

This account came out of nowhere and began goading me on my Talk Page. I politely warned them about it, and then they ran with it accusing me of harassing them even though I only responded (unprompted) the one time. My second time I gave them a Final Warning on it (because in recent months I've been getting a lot of flack from registered and Anon-IPs) while pointing out their mistake that I've not done a thing, and they responded (for their third time with lies on my Talk Page) that I had done so thrice. This person is also seemingly very well versed in Misplaced Pages policies, nomenclature and backdoors and it would not surprise me if they are trying to avenge a past dispute.

1. Random passive-agressive harassment, no prior interaction at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700180517&oldid=699601413 at 18:39, 16 January 2016
2. I send a generic TW level 1 warning on harassment of other editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700498750&oldid=699719662 at 17:39, 18 January 2016 and think nothing more of it.
3. Then it gets good. User makes it obvious he or she is delusional or/and a different user with the following edit's claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700693285&oldid=700180517 at 21:33, 19 January 2016. Note that they said I am harassing them and they don't want to engage in a conversation with me! I had done nothing close to resembling this. My only interaction with this account was an automated low-level warning and by choosing my name out of a hat to harass on my Talk page the case could be made that a conversation with me (especially since they technically asked a question) was exactly what they wanted.
4. For the reasons as stated above I didn't want to have to deal with another abusive troll so gave them a Final Warning on harassment, noting that that notice itself was only the second time I had ever interacted with them: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mdclxvi0&diff=700726190&oldid=700498750 at 02:49, 20 January 2016.
5. And, of course, after that final warning of harassing me, they couldn't help themselves and came back to my Talk Page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JesseRafe&diff=700831329&oldid=700743845 at 18:05, 20 January 2016 again accusing me frivolously of things that are easily seen to be untrue.

Given this, and the specific language used, I find it hard to believe this user has only 9 days experience on this site, and at that almost 20% of their total edits have been to blatantly upbraid me on my Talk Page with random noise and lies. JesseRafe (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe, why don't you and Mdclxvi0 just agree to stay off each other talk pages? It seems like a tit-for-tat situation that isn't actually about any article. I'm sorry that you have had to deal with trolls and socks in the past but I don't think Mdclxvi0 qualifies as "an abusive troll" at this point. Liz 23:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am off his page! I was never on it! It's blatant lies on my page and he or she needs to get a warning. How else would a user fresh out of not having an account in nine days make 3 out of 16 edits on my Talk Page complaining about me when I had never interacted with their editing in their (at that time) prior 11 edits in 5 days, if they were were not a new editor just a new account? To say this is a "tit-for-tat" is a very unsatisfactory response. Clearly this user has an agenda. In fact, to deign to call it "tit-for-tat" legitimizes this blatant and obvious harassing troll behavior. There is no tit-for-tat when one party is unilaterally harassing and libeling another. JesseRafe (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see harassment and libel, I see two editors telling each other to stay away from each other. This doesn't need to escalate if you can just choose not to interact with each other. Liz 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, he feels as though because I am new user that he is entitled to sanction bans and harass people with accusations of sockpuppetry. He also threatened me with "administrator action" believing his time spent on Misplaced Pages gives him preferential treatment, and I am glad it didn't work! Screaming "libel" on one hand while accusing others of ban evading is ironic in and of itself. I have no interest in ever going to his talk page and am glad he is banned from going on mine. Thank you once again and will heed your advice to ignore. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This response itself is libel. I am happy to ignore this troll. The issue is his or her repeated and unprompted messages on my Talk Page over nothing but whatever he or she has imagined. I never knew this person existed until they started goading me. I had none of the mens rea this troll accuses me of, just stating the facts neutrally in the timeline provided above. What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance? JesseRafe (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"What else is supposed to be done in this circumstance?" - She just told you, in plain English, to "agree to stay off each other talk pages". Also, referring to me as a troll is a violation of WP:PERSONAL and doing so only gives credence to your persecution complex. Let bygones be bygones, stay off my talk page, and stop wasting the administrators' time. Mdclxvi0 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If calling another editor "an abusive troll" is a personal attack, then saying that an editor has a "persecution complex" is equally so. You want the other editor to stop? Then you do the same. BMK (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, both of you: knock it off. Slinging a continually escalating series of personal attacks at each other is only going to end with both of you being blocked, so let's have an end to that. You don't want to talk to each other. Stop talking to each other. If you want a formalized WP:IBAN then ask for it, without using words like "lies", "libel", "delusional" or "persecution complex", but the issue can be resolved right now by both of you walking away from each other and working on content instead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Go to your neutral corners: JesseRafe, I was inclined to support your complaint until you started saying "libel", "delusional" and "troll". I understand you're annoyed over this, but that's no excuse for intemperate behavior. I'll grant that Mdclxvi0's sudden inquiry at your user talk is suspicious, but you need not jump to any conclusions. Also, your OP is incorrect in stating that you used a level-1 warning template: You used a level-3 as an opener. That's definitely not appropriate. That said, Mdclxvi0: Your response to JesseRafe's use of a user warning template, even if incorrect, was way over the line and only made things worse. All that said, it's way too soon for administrative intervention. Furthermore, I'm inclined to say there's no reason that either of you must stay off each other's user talk pages at this time. It would probably be a good idea to leave each other alone for a bit, but I'm not a fan of jumping to what's essentially a voluntary interaction ban given how minor the precipitating incidents were. We shouldn't reward either knee-jerk accusations of harassment. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on , my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Misplaced Pages. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Misplaced Pages. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Misplaced Pages somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Misplaced Pages is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
• I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
• Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Misplaced Pages's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
• I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
• My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
• Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Misplaced Pages has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Misplaced Pages I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Misplaced Pages these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Misplaced Pages of eight or nine years ago. Misplaced Pages does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Misplaced Pages pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Misplaced Pages will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Misplaced Pages risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Misplaced Pages was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all . Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Misplaced Pages, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay. And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Misplaced Pages is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Misplaced Pages. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours

There's an issue with drafts being shuffled around by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that's being handled over at WT:WPAFC. However, we've had a repeated issue with an anon placing inflammatory comments over on that page. He was already banned after trying to get Ricky desysoped over at AN but apparently he's on a rather dynamic network and has swapped IPs consistently and continued to leave messages. Here's a hopefully complete list of socks:

• 166.170.44.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - original banned IP
• 166.170.45.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.170.45.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 107.72.98.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's already been banned on the first IP and it's pretty obvious he's the same guy. Could we get a ban on these and any other socks that he shows up with? --Nathan2055 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's just WP:DENY and move on please. The same complaint is happening here by regular editors here so if they want to bring it here, let them do it without encouraging this character. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but we need to at least deal with these IPs. It's vandalism all the same, even if it's on a talk page. --Nathan2055 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been months of this. WP:RBI. This character is following me around demanding the same thing ever change he gets. The subject matter is the excuse. Worst part if I can't even tell if it's from the longevity issues or the Indian caste stuff or the Koch-brother stuff or what but he's been consistently angry with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered leaving a polite message asking what draft it was but since he's already been banned after he tried to get you desysoped it'd be better if we just ban these IPs and semi-protect WT:WPAFC for a few days. --Nathan2055 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it's a draft that's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: If it's this dude, they are indeed banned.--Jezebel's Ponyo 16:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to say blocked. But since it looks like they have already been banned previously, it's a moot point. In any case, he's back on 2605:e000:3f13:1d00:8a7:d8fe:c0d1:f4f6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 166.170.48.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doing the same thing he's been doing (either trying to call for Ricky to topic banned from AfC or just spouting personal attacks against everyone involved). --Nathan2055 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, then I stand (well, sit) corrected! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah this guy! As Jezebel's Ponyo has mentioned, this particular individual has been quite a thorn for a while. Liberal application of WP:RBI is pretty much the SOP when dealing with this person. A little back history is available here, if anyone happens to be interested. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Geez, looks like that guy's got quite a history, especially with the consistent personal attacks against Ricky. Might ought to consider a range block, at least over 166.170.44.xx and 160.170.45.xx and possibly even higher to 166.170.xx.xx if that won't cause too much collateral damage. --Nathan2055 04:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocks have been assessed by several Checksusers and are not possible due to extensive collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In the case, can we just get a block on these and then deal with any other socks that pop up when they do? --Nathan2055 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, looks like he struck again over at bot requests. --Nathan2055 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

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

The user with IP 196.14.21.218 has vandalized Wiki multiple times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A196.14.21.218

Some vandalism is hard to spot, for example the following vandalism persisted for almost 3 years before I corrected it today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=556065464

This user has been blocked multiple times, and it hasn't worked. Can we have a longer or even a permanent ban?

JS (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since April 2015. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that this IP hasn't edited for about a year, this editor has a long history of vandalism for over 3 years (March 2012 to April 2015) and could be back. It took me a bit of time to identify this well disguised vandalism that persisted in an article almost 3 years. JS (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jayanta Sen - Blocks are not a punitive measure, but a preventative measure. In this situation (vandalism), blocks are only performed when they are currently in-progress, and after other measures have been attempted (such as sufficiently warning the user). Also, IPs are usually never indefinitely blocked from editing; they're blocked for 36 hours (longer if long term, repeated, or a block just expired - behavior typically seen by School IPs). In this situation, there is absolutely no reason to block the IP at this time. If vandalism starts up from this IP, warn the user, and report it to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This is the proper procedure that should be followed. ~Oshwah~ 03:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Millimeter Wave Scanners page

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

on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Millimeter_wave_scanner, the primary contributer to that page is contantly changing my edits to his erronious information. He is citing blogs and tabloids as credible sources for scientific and medical information. His statements are false and or misleading most of the time. I have tried to make corrections to his edits and information based on more up to date and credible sources of information, but he keeps going back in there to erase my edits and interject his own poorly researched information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7742:89B0:91A0:1E54:F890:ACE6 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is three different editors that have reverted your edits. This is a content dispute and your first step should be to go to the talk page and explain why you think your changes are correct and the article is wrong. With the size of the changes it would be best to start with one piece and discuss that and gain consensus to the change. Then move on to the next one. -- GB fan 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with GB fan (Sorry about the Green Bay @ Arizona game - I assume that's what your username means ;-)). ~Oshwah~ 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Misplaced Pages policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Misplaced Pages policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~ 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~ 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

More Steve Comisar annoyances

This biography article has repeatedly had "fans" of the subject advocate for inclusion of various things, and people actually threaten editors who had removed them (see ANI archives).

One common thread with a few of these advocates had been that, instead or in addition to making their point on the article's talk page, they have spammed the personal talk pages of every editor involved with the same long statement. You can witness the latest incident of this sort at Special:Contributions/205.115.188.114. Should this be ignored and should it be assumed to be good-faith behavior? LjL (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim bexley speed, TheThoughtfulOrc, Ruby Murray, Cwobeel, Tokyogirl79, DanielRigal, and Onel5969: pinging you as the involved parties who received the talk page message this report is about. LjL (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This story has something for everyone: Canvassing, probable sockpuppetry and possibly also paid editing. Discussion is ongoing here too: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TonySpraks. I am assuming that this will lead to the people responsible getting blocked very soon and then it will all calm down. I'd be sad if it meant that Comisar lost his internet access completely (or if that is already the case) as there is so much scope for education and entertainment that he could be taking advantage of instead of wasting his time trying to manage his own reputation. If Misplaced Pages stands for one thing it is to bring knowledge of the whole world to anybody who who is interested, prisoners included. I find it genuinely sad that he is not interested in any of that, only in himself. The talk page messages are unwelcome and somewhat annoying but I am just rolling them up on my talk page. So long as he doesn't start with the snail mail again I'm not going to get too angry. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't forget the offline and online harassment, if I'm reading the article's talk page correctly. At one point Comisar was sending out multiple letters to at least one editor's home address, which was viewed as harassment given the amount of letters sent AND the fact that one of the sockpuppets began making threats. The IP shows up as being located in Jacksonville, NC and is through the Naval Network Warfare Command, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Now if this is accurate and the IP is someone in the military editing on behalf of Comisar, they need to stop. The military does not take well to people taking part in harassment campaigns, which is essentially what's happening here. They might not be making threats like TonySpraks, but these accounts and IPs are all making the same claims based on the same, unusable sources. This shows some clear off-line coordination so even if this is a case of different people, it's still clearly meatpuppetry. This unfortunately also makes it difficult to tell if this person is one of the same people that have already posted or if it's someone who is spamming the page with the same requests because they're all being told to go to the page and use these specific sources. I'm leaning towards this being multiple people using a script to ask for changes because Maniamit (one of the more vocal people recently to lobby for Comisar) wrote something similar and claims to be located in India. Can we lock the page to where an admin would have to approve any edits to the page? This has been going on since 2011 and it's only going to get worse once he gets released from prison. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm usually opposed to full page protection unless there is continuous vandalism that cannot be dealt with timely enough. Here, for now, we seem to be able to revert the dubious edits just fine with semi-protection alone, so, I would leave full protection for another day. I note that this IP editor directly claimed we "educated" them "on the Misplaced Pages editing process", so I would say that's an admission that they are the in fact one of the same people that have already posted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annoyance at this point. I was simply going to delete messages like that to my talk page, and just keep an eye on the article. Onel5969 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One of Comisar's puppets threatened me in a very ugly fashion about five weeks ago. WMF legal got involved and asked if I would talk to law enforcement about it. The next day, I got a call from a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigator who confirmed that the threat came from a Navy IP address, and that they were trying to figure out who was responsible. Comisar and his puppets want the article to state that he is an experienced actor as well as a multiple convicted con artist. He is also reaching out to any actor in Hollywood who has been in jail or prison. He is clearly lobbying for an acting career when he gets out of prison. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, is there a reason the article's set to PC1 instead instead of full SPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jethro's team will solve this mystery! LjL (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason anyone should watch that show is if a kidnapper shows up and says, "Watch an episode or die!" --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update: the IP I've reported here has been been blocked for a week for disruptive editing; the SPI involving them has concluded, but unsurprisingly, no word has been stated about the IP; anyway, most of the spamming at the Steve Comisar talkpage has been hatted, and it seems like it will continue to be as it happens in the future. LjL (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mshmurd at film articles

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

Mshmurd (talk · contribs) keeps going around to film articles adding "black comedy" for films that are clearly not black comedies, as seen here and here. When reverted, even if the edit is clearly explained to him via an edit summary, he returns to add the same edit; for example, as seen in this case. This editor has warnings on his talk page and does not seem to listen; he just edits disruptively again and again. I will go ahead and alert him and WP:Film to this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie gave him a final warning on his talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is/was the best course of action. If it occurs again, he can be reported and blocked. ~Oshwah~ 02:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content/3RR and Lack of civility on List of people with autism spectrum disorders

We're coming dangerously close to violating WP:3RR on List of people with autism spectrum disorders, though reverting mass removal of content where such removal goes against the underlying guidelines for inclusion on the page probably does not violate it. Eventually, an RfC was opened in an effort to stop the edit warring, which failed as User:Galerita removed the content again, which I reverted again. Additionally, Galerita came pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL, if not crossing the line, here on the RfC. Some admin needs to step in before things get out of hand. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The lead of this list article should be enough indication that this is a potential, if not actual, BLP violation. It was nominated for deletion and kept, but that was in 2007. Hint. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really see the incivility. There's mention of one editor being accused of having created an unbalanced article, but that's it. This discussion also is indicative of the BLP violating potential of such a listing--note the suggestion we create Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime. Like we have Homosexuality and violent crime. Wait. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like you are both close to violating the three revert rule. I will say, though, that Galerita's edits to that page aren't acceptable, as that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did. Chesnaught (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did" I completely disagree Chesnaught. When the appearance of cause and effect is created by association, and NO causal relationship exists, then some appropriate comment is required. This standard in the media, and not to do so can result in defamation proceedings. Galerita (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Which is a good reason not to have such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Our family has several members with ASD. It is distressing to say the least. So I searched for "famous people with ASD" and this was the first hit. I was shocked by the inclusions on the list. It took some time to discover that the crimes committed by individuals on this page were unrelated to ASD. Even including this disclaimer in the header would be insufficient as I didn't read the header, just the names.

In its current form the page creates the impression of a causative relationship that doesn't exist. There will be distressed individuals with ASD seeking solace that some famous people have ASD to find they are in the company of serial killers. ASD is already difficult to live with for families and individuals themselves. Sufferers have high rates of psychiatric illnesses, suffer rejection, isolation, unemployment, difficulties functioning in society and have high suicide rates. Compounding this with the inevitable prejudice created by this page is insensitive, offensive and probably injurious.

Here's another test. Would it be appropriate to write to the living noncriminal entries on the list and ask if they are happy to remain on it? I'm happy to do so if no one else is.

The page should NOT remain in its current form. Some ideas: deletion; restrict it to people noteworthy because they have ASD (rather than noteworthy people with ASD); or restrict it to noteworthy people who publicly identify as having ASD (i.e. advocates).

Finally, my apologies for being robust in my editorial approach. I am an occasional rather than experienced Misplaced Pages editor. It should be self-evident that experienced editors are better able to preserve and defend the content they create, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. I can see this page is inappropriate even though I don't know the detailed rules.Galerita (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Galerita: As these people are already notable it would be perfectly suitable for you to state that their ASD didn't cause them to do what they did on their articles rather than the List of people with autism spectrum disorders. Having AS myself, I can fully understand why you wish to clarify that said condition did not make them commit whatever crime they committed, and I do hate how the media portray us sometimes, but that page is a list of people and nothing else. Chesnaught (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Long term abuse

User:Basque&Roll- 79.167.164.4 Vandal and sockpuppeteer

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

  Y Merger complete. --QEDK (T 📖 C)

For the record: I had no prior relationship with NewsAndEventsGuy prior to recently getting involved in work on Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. We have both agreed and disagreed over edits on that article. NewsAndEventsGuy has posted once to my Talk page. That's about the sum total of our relationship now. I have never threatened Prostetnic. I think the harshest thing I've said to PVJ is, "Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, would you please read WP:AGF and WP:FOC." PVJ has made many very useful contributions and I hope will continue to do so. I do not want PVJ to leave: I do want PVJ to adopt a different approach to disagreement! I note this recent edit in addition to the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AOccupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&type=revision&diff=701288664&oldid=701283774 Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)