Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Br'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 10 August 2012 (→User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day.: bzzt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect

About Index to isotope pages -- Template:Index to isotope pages (by periodic table). One is content, one is a Redirect. There was some moving & deleting, which left an incorrect situation.

1. 20:14, 24 July 2012: DePiep move from Article to Template space, leave a R
2. 19:26, 1 August 2012‎: IP tagging the R with DB-R3
3. 20:13, 1 August 2012: Martijn Hoekstra: MH moved the tagged R page to his Userspace
4. 20:17, 1 August 2012: MH removed the R3 tag.
5. 03:00, 2 August 2012: Matthewrbowker (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R2).
6. 05:51, 2 August 2012: Nyttend deleted the R page for DB-R2
7. 14:32, 2 August 2012: Double sharp moved content page from Template to Article space, leaving R.

So the page was fine for almost eight days in Template space and an R. An IP vandalised the R with a speedy tag, MH moved it to (his) userspace, which invoked deletion for R2. That left many red links on article pages, so DS moved it back to Article space to make them blue.

The situation now is that it is template page in article space. I request reversal, back into the situation before the vandalism started (so: code in Template space, the Article page a redirect).

The move by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) MH was bad judgement and did not address the R3 tagging. When I asked for explanation , MH was incomplete. Later on, MH was evasive, did not explain his motives, and ducked responsibility . I find the behaviour of MH (bad move and not cooperating) disruptive. I contacted Nyttend to discuss (propose) undoing the deletion , but Nyttend denied, arguing that the R2 deletion in itself was correct at that moment (which is a valid point too). He then helped me clarifying the process (I am not an admin, I didn't see everything). I concluded to take the whole issue here.

Anyway, I request a reversal. Note: if the pre-vandalism situation is to be challenged (arguments have entered), that should be done after reversal, and on apropriate pages -- not at ANI and not by es. The current situation was created by vandalism and bad judgement, which is not the process to imply changes. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, what administrator intervention would you like, and what here can't be fixed through requested moves? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Notified MH, DS, Nyttend. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't really agree completely with the index page being moved to template space, I don't really mind either if it is (though there do seem to be many precedents for keeping indexes in article space, I'm quite undecided on the matter, since an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles). My major motive (which I put first in my edit summary) for moving it back is that the links were broken, and it seemed easier to move one page that edit 118 pages. I wasn't aware of this situation until now, since I wasn't involved in the speedy deletions going on on that page.

While cross-namespace redirects are generally considered to be a bad thing, I would consider that if they are linked by many pages or are also of interest to readers, like Periodic table (standard), then they should remain. This is especially true for pages that straddle the boundaries between two namespaces: for example, Template:Periodic table is in the template space, while Periodic table (large version) is in the article space, even though they are very similar. Likewise, while an index is not really an article in itself, but rather a means to find articles, it could also be argued that putting an index in template space (or some other namespace) means that readers are less likely to find it (unless, of course, it is linked heavily and prominently). In such cases, especially when the actual content page is not in the mainspace, there should be cross-namespace redirects to ensure that readers will find it if the page is useful to them. (An R3 posted on the redirect Periodic table (standard) was not carried out, as it had many links from the mainspace and was thus manifestly useful to readers.) Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly this discussion should be elsewhere, and after the revert. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DS acted in good faith when doing that last move. No complaint from me. It's just that IMO, seen the process, the situation should be mirrored. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So you did not see? What an impressive argument. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I think you did not even read. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That was uncivil and uncalled for, DePiep. CBW has done nothing to deserve an assumption of anything but good faith from you. That said, I only partially agree with CBW. I see a series of good-faith actions on the part of others that combined to result in an unfortunate disruption. While that's certainly not vandalism, it is a problem. - Jorgath (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that CBW did not read the thread. CBW did not contribute anything to the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read the entire thread and followed all the links. I still don't see any vandalism. The only possible way that the IP edit can be described as vandalism is if it is expanded to cover using the wrong speedy template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding R3 was vandalism. Then, the thread is about more. The red herring is yours. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no intention of any red herring on my part it was a valid question. You called the IP edit vandalism and it is not that, even Martijn Hoekstra didn't claim that. The most you can say is that the IP made an error. Also if the the IP is guilty of vandalism why did you not add a warning to their talk page? In fact I now see that you didn't even bother to notify them about this discussion, which I have done for you. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because IP adding R3 is not the issue here. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

re CBW: "No intention of red herring"? -- but still you did. You followed it by yourself. "a valid question"? I'm not seeing any Misplaced Pages:Vandalism here you wrote. Is not even a question. "even MH didn't claim that." -- Had you read the thread, you'd know that MH is the lowest authority you could invoke. MH is the perpetrator. And IP vandalism is not the ANI topic. "you didn't even bother to notify" -- Talk for yourself. You did not even check your thing. -DePiep (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"User does not agree with me" does not equal "user did not read what I said." You are being uncivil. Furthermore, vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Misplaced Pages. What you encountered was quite possibly disruption, but CBW is perfectly correct to claim it was not vandalism. Finally, notification of being mentioned in ANI is not optional. - Jorgath (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP is not the subject of this thread, not even his edit. Neither is the R2 tagger or the bot. Just in between edits. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Smells like Jorgath and CBW are after the same red herring. Have a nice distraction. Now please read what MH, an editor I accused, wrote right below . Is what I call being great. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I would like to note WP:DONTPANIC. The tagging the IP did was wrong, the move I did wasn't the smartest thing to do, I don't think the deletion of the mainspace redirect was the best idea, though certainly defendable in policy, the move back by DoubleSharp fixed the acute issue of redlinks. The wiki isn't burning, everything can be solved by normal processess (let this be the third time I go on record suggesting requested moves to move to template space). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to describe it as you see it. And I agree. -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

News

Misplaced Pages is front-page news at USAToday.com. Things must be a little slow today. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it was necessary to semi-protect those pages. Electric Catfish 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wonder who planted this quasi-news story. I also wonder if it's true that some of the potential VP candidates' pages were fully protected as opposed to merely semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt the latter, because I have very little confidence in the ability of news media in general to understand the difference. - Jorgath (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that only Pawlenty is fully protected, at the moment - the others are semi'd. The USAToday piece refers to Rob Portman, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and David Petraeus "all have locks on them with a message that the page is either fully or partially 'protected due to vandalism'." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, in relation to at least Romney and Portman, could someone take a look at User:Viewmont Viking's edits and tell me I'm seeing things? Would make me feel a lot better. Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I pulled up WikiChecker and took a look. I see an interest in two (maybe three) topics: Mitt Romney and Florida (and possibly Florida animals). On the Florida-stuff, I don't see a problem. On the Romney stuff, I see mild POV-pushing, but much more restrained than some of the silly-season stuff that happens around here. That said, this user takes WP:BOLD to extremes, and should probably discuss more. - Jorgath (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So I am fairly new at editing and cannot believe I have already been added to the Administration Notice board. The original warring complaint which Viriditas made didn't really have a specific edit warring that I was involved in, when asked to provide one he came up with a change I made to the 2002 Winter Olympics. The information had been on the talk page for almost 24 hours before I removed it, and still no one else has complained. In addition Viriditas made warring threats to a number of editors at about the same time he made it to me. He made them to. to Belchfire on August 4, Causa sui on August 3, 32.142.204.111 on July 31, 130.65.109.101 on July 31 (These two may be the same person), And Ianmacm on July 30. As for the Portman article I did not make any edits. I mentioned that controversy sections invite controversy in the talk page. For Mitt Romney I was working to improve his Elections Campaign 2012 when things got too heated I pretty much backed off. As you can see from my edits, I also went much more to the talk page once a number of additional editors got involved. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry I had didn't sign I meant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(squints hard) So you did. All right, I take back the last sentence about BOLD and discussion. I won't retract this: you do dhow a mild POV in favor of Romney. It's not strong enough to keep you from editing Romney stuff, but I'll ask you to keep it in mind that if someone suggests something is non-neutral when you thought it was perfectly neutral, they may be right. We all run into that eventually. Other than that, I say nothing to see here, move along all. - Jorgath (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Misplaced Pages should allow BRD to provide cover for naked partisanship. Anybody who understands BRD (understanding is not universal, mind you), should also be able to comprehend NPOV. Using one to ignore the other is simply disruptive, and should draw sanctions. Belchfire-TALK 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll appreciate you taking up your baseless sockpuppet accusations at WP:SPI. causa sui (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning card

Someone want to take a look at this? Article started in 2009 and seems to have been a constant battleground between COI editors ever since. Currently fully protected in an effort to dissuade the latest incarnation of an editor who is on account #4 now (not to mention all the IPs) from warring with another SPA whose deleted contribs suggest he's involved with a competing technology. Given the complete lack of references at any point in the article's history, and its obvious use as a promotional tool by multiple parties, is it worth simply nuking it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AFD, not ANI. Nobody Ent 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't (which is why your summary dismissal of it after eight minutes was grossly inappropriate). There is every chance that there is a notable subject in there, and deletion should be a last resort take only if we agree that the warring is completely intractable. It would be far better for a solution to be discussed which allows for the article to be developed without being constantly tugged around by SPIs. Input from the admin corps (and "experienced editors", if they're not too busy shutting threads) is welcome as to how to proceed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Severe problems with how an article is written or it's editors is not a reason for deletion. The subject looks wp:notable and enclyclopedic to me. That article has such blatant simple (= easily remedied) problems (e.g. far reaching unsourced claims of primacy, superiority, noteworthiness, prominence for particular companies, individuals, approaches and methods) that I think that a few extra experienced sets of neutral eyes could get the article in a lot better shape. Also has declared (via user name) COI editors (which is better than stealth ones which are probably also present) which could use a little help/guidance on wp:coi. I'd be happy to help a bit. (am not an admin) North8000 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD isn't just for deletions, and there has been discussion about changing the name from "Deletions" to "Discussions" for year. Often, it is the most effective way to fix an article, as the bickering parties become inspired to cooperate once it's head is on the block. Not sure if this is at that point yet, but it isn't obvious that it meets criteria either. To me, AFD is at least a viable option here, since it has exactly zero sources and only spammy looking external links and a boatload of original research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all of those things happen there; I've been involved in many of those decisions and subsequent reworks/rescues myself. And it would force it to pretty quickly get a few references. Then it could be nuked to the stub of what is covered by the references. But any wiki-experienced person would know that this article should not be actually deleted. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the easiest way to build something is to destroy the thing that is in its way. Takes all the arguing out of it. Forcing it to become a sourced stub and grow from there, regardless of how it is achieved, is likely the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TNT says it well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Dennis, although I've been occasionally abused at AfD for not fixing it myself. Sometimes, I come away a bit battered but the batterers do improve the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Either way I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would send it to AfD. While there are plenty of companies selling cleaning cards, neither Google Books nor Scholar turn up anything obviously usable as a reference. An AfD would help verify whether enough sources exist to start the article again from scratch. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

Criticism of Misplaced Pages was originally an article. A February 2011 NPOV noticeboard discussion came to the consensus that it should be a disambiguation page. This was created and content merged to the listed articles.

The following month RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) reverted the page to an article . Rememberway (talk · contribs) then restored the disambiguation page . Over the following months there was persistent sockpuppetry to restore the article, and some restorations by other users - particularly QuackGuru (talk · contribs) e.g. .

Per a talk page discussion with only 3 participants, , JTSchreiber (talk · contribs) converted into a redirect to Misplaced Pages in July 2011. In February 2012, Extra999 (talk · contribs) refined the target to Misplaced Pages#Nature of Misplaced Pages., which was undone by an anon in May 2012 . Longbyte1 (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD in June 2012 , the outcome of that discussion was "keep" with Reliability of Misplaced Pages suggested as a possible target by several participants (note: I participated in that discussion). However, during that discussion Guy Macon (talk · contribs) changed the target to Misplaced Pages:Criticisms without commenting at the RfD and this was not noticed by any of the participants nor apparently by the closer, Ruslik0 (talk · contribs).

On 5 August 2012, Ibicdlcod (talk · contribs) nominated the redirect at RfD (see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Misplaced Pages) . Yesterday (8 August 2012), Silver seren (talk · contribs) reverted the page back to the most recent article version, stating "The NPOV/N board a year and a half ago was the wrong location anyways. This should have been taken to AfD or a Request for Content should have been started. This is all highly inappropriate and I oppose it.". Despite being aware of the ongoing RfD they did not mention their actions there.

Although I am a participant in the current RfD discussion, and therefore not neutral regarding its outcome, the comments so far do not show a consensus for returning this to an article (although it has been suggested).

AN/I is not the correct location to determine what this page should be, and so do not comment about there here please. However, it is a place to get advice regarding what actions (if any) should be taken against any of the users and to get advice on whether the ongoing RfD should be continued (with or without reversion to a redirect) or whether it should be taken to AfD or another location? That is what I am seeking here. I will now notify all the users I have mentioned above and the current RfD discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with the assumption that I would edit war? I already said my piece at the RfD. I, however, didn't know that there was a talk page discussion about changing from a DAB to a redirect, but I must say that it is highly unimpressive and doesn't seem like any kind of consensus to me. Silverseren 11:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I closed the RFD as "keep the redirect", which means that there was a consensus against reverting it back to an article (at least, until NPOV problems are sorted out, which should be done on its talk page, not at RFD.) The exact target was not important and, in fact, was not discussed except for one comment by Michaelzeng7. (I noticed that the target was changed.) Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2 July 2012 I searched for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages", and discovered that the page it redirected to was stupid.

On 12:00, 2 July 2012, I changed

Criticism of Misplaced Pages #REDIRECT Misplaced Pages

to

Criticism of Misplaced Pages #REDIRECT Misplaced Pages:Criticisms

with the edit comment

"Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" is not looking for Misplaced Pages. He/she is looking for Misplaced Pages:Criticisms or for Reliability of Misplaced Pages, which is the first hatnote at Misplaced Pages:Criticisms."

Here is that edit.

I left the redirects for discussion notice intact.

The state of the redirects for discussion page when I did that is here.

or, if you prefer to jump to the section in question, look here.

Please note that the RfD was closed. thus, the above statement that "during that discussion changed the target to Misplaced Pages:Criticisms without commenting at the RfD" is factually incorrect. My action was after the discussion was closed and marked "The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it." I don't go around changing redirects that have open RfDs. That would be disruptive.

The actual close was six days later, then there were no edits for a month.

I was simply following the advice found at WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I made a bold edit (which I contend fixed a real problem), explained why in my edit comment. and waited for someone to revert and discuss.

Also, I made the right decision. The existing target sucked. Someone who is searching for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages" is not looking for Misplaced Pages. He/she is looking for Misplaced Pages:Criticisms or for Reliability of Misplaced Pages, which is the first hatnote at Misplaced Pages:Criticisms. Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On 2nd July the RfD was not closed but still open, so you should have commented at that discussion, linked from the redirect page when you visited it, rather than ignoring it. As for "Does anyone here dispute that my decision was correct?", yes - everyone who has commented so far at the current RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong.

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion as of 09:33, 2 July 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=500305985 (Search for "Criticism of Misplaced Pages")

My edit on 12:00, 2 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=500319163&oldid=498111108

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion as of 00:13, 3 July 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion&direction=next&oldid=500305985

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion just transcludes the daily subpages, so all those links are showing you is which subpages were transcluded at those times because, exactly with templates and all other forms of transclusion on Misplaced Pages, the current version is transcluded rather than the version that was live at the time of the historical revision. To see the state of the RfD discussion at the time you need to look at the historical revision of the daily subpage - the link I gave above. To illustrate this, see the version of the main RfD page as of 23:11, 18 June 2012. See also Bug 34244. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And in that case there's a perfectly good reason to assume it was just an honest mistake. If it appears closed in the transclusion that Guy Macon was looking at, and it appears open in the one you show, then that's an "oops," not a "you were disruptively going against consensus." - Jorgath (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, if I saw a stupid redirect target that had an open RfD, I would have made a comment at the RfD saying I though it was a stupid redirect target. I would never purposely change a redirect while the RfD is open. That would be rude as well as disruptive. I wish someone had noticed and reverted or commented at the time. Right now I don't know exactly what I was looking at and how I missed the open RfD. I apologize for the error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Errr, in July 2, the RfD page was transcluding the discussion as it was in July 2, when it was still open. When you opened the RfD link from the article, you were shown a still-open discussion. The transclusion was showing an open discussion. You must have mis-readed the RfD page, and mistakenly believed that it was closed. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how I made that mistake, but it was a mistake, and I certainly will be extra careful in the future to avoid making it again. Again, I apologize.

That being said, I see several other actions by several other editors mentioned at the top of this section. Perhaps it is someone else's turn in the barrel? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour

I would like to make a formal complain against the user FerrerFour (talk · contribs) the user has been making continued personalised attacks on users whom they disagree with on the discussion page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. They have referred to myself as a liar in this comment in this comment they specifically state I am the problem and that I am incompetent . In this edit they are stating I have no understanding of things In this edit they state "anyone with half a brain could see that" . In this comment they state "I see no reason for anyone to be forced to listen to your continued insistence that black is white," . Here they state "I do know what I'm talking about, whereas you pretty obviously don't." . In this edit they attempt to defend their personalised comments . In this edit they refer to other editors contributions as "More rubbish", "clearly nonsense" " there's people talking about policies that they know about, and then there's you" . In this edit they state "I shouldn't trust your reading skills if I were you" . in this edit they make numerous personalised uncivil comments . In this comment they use phrases such as "Just get this through your thick head will you" and " I just think it's garbage, born out of your weird hatred of the press" .

Can some action please be taken against this user who is clearly making uncivil and personalised comments on other users which is getting disruptive and is getting highly offensive. Sport and politics (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• This might have gone beyond WP:WQA based on the sheer quantity of uncivil commentary. They're simply wiping out formal warnings from their talkpage. I have given them a "welcomecivil"" template, as I note they had not been advised of Misplaced Pages's rules formally, although that excuses nothing. dangerouspanda 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like they need someone patient and understanding to bounce talk with back and forth for a day or two, to understand that this isn't a forum, and we discuss instead of debate. Sounds like a job for a Panda. (wink wink, nod nod, hint hint) I would rather see that attempted before we take any other action since this guy is really new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I stumbled across this yesterday after receiving a less than courteous reply from Sport and politics to a legitimate question, in which I was basically accused of soapboxing, and I'm afraid I was a little vexed at the time. It seems to me both FerrerFour and Sport and Politics appear to be embroiled in an argument that spreads across several threads on the page, and is gradually escalating, with FerrerFour clearly out of line with some of his comments. But I'm also concerned about Sport and politics, who appears to be throwing a lot of guidelines about, but not really understanding their true nature. I think they both need a bit of coaching. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• This does need nipping in the bud, but the controversies page is not exactly the most friendly page. Moreover it's not so much the personal attacks, but the oppositional attitude of which that is the symptom that creates the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
  

I stand by my comments. If Misplaced Pages cares more about the likes of Sports and Politics being offended by being told he is incompetent, rather than actually investigating whether he is indeed incompetent, then there's no hope for it as a serious project. As Paul points out, this guy is just throwing links out there all over the place on the talk page, as if he understands them, when he clearly doesn't. That's bad enough, but when you also consider he is also slashing and burning sections of the article based on this incompetence, someone has to put him through a rapid Misplaced Pages education programme. I'm doing my bit by giving him a bit of plain speaking wherever I see him talking nonsense, which is of course quite different from being out and out insulting or vulgar for no reason. FerrerFour (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You could just use the word "incompetent" and stay away from some of the other stuff. "Incompetent" is not an insult, it's even a guideline around here (WP:COMPETENCE). The other stuff is not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add here I did actually revert something he claimed to have archived because I couldn't find it there. That he didn't add it could have been a genuine error though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That error has now been rectified I missed it off as it was the top discussion being archived when I transferred across. Sport and politics (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though to be honest there's no need to manually archive anything as MiszaBot is doing the job. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise that was occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:COMPETENCE isn't a guideline and it is an insult. It even said so in the essay: "This essay is often criticized for being uncivil." FerrerFour: Someone may be incompetent, but telling them so isn't going to solve any problems. If it were acceptable to just write someone else off an incompetent, then every time any of us had a disagreement we'd just say the other is incompetent. Nothing would get solved. You need to back off the insults and focus on the content and use reliable sources to back up your position.--v/r - TP 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used reliable sources and I've discussed the content. Sports and politice rejects all of this, precisely because of his incompetence. If you don't believe me, how about you try having a logical discussion with him instead, see how far you get when it becomes clear that he has no clue about the links he keeps throwing out there. I hope you like banging your head against a desk. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:FerrerFour appears to be new. (Although his claimed detailed knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies is somewhat of a surprise given that situation.) Almost all his edits have been on topics related to the London Olympic Games. He has very strong views on some of these matters. In addition, the article where the problems being discussed have occurred, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, is a very controversial article itself. In my humble opinion, it is currently an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining. User:FerrerFour disagrees, very rudely at times, with me and others. Where I'm going with this post is that, while User:FerrerFour's behaviour has been less than perfect, the nature of the article he is arguing over is part of the problem. If someone with appropriate authority could lay down some firmer rules for what that article should contain, and police it appropriately, a lot of this whole problem would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have strong views about people who say things like "it's an incredibly bloated platform for anyone with any complaint on the Games to broadcast their whining", when quite clearly, this is a total lie. This is the guy who called me a "games hater" and made all sorts of other bullshit accusations about my motives, for doing nothing more heinous than pointing out what is a bloody obvious fact - being sent home from an Olympic games is nearly always considered a controversy, as can be verified in the reliable sources. This is the guy who claims incidents like this get forgotten about in a few days, then goes silent when I show him a reliable source that proves the exact opposite. I think I've been quite restrained in the face of such deceitful and disgraceful behaviour quite frankly. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefaced the words you quoted with "In my humble opinion..." That you chose to leave that out does your image no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

His edits elsewhere (e.g., Talk:Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics) haven't exactly been the most polite either. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Another excellent example of what people have to face in Misplaced Pages when others are minded to dispute things while not really knowing anything about policy - 12 days it took me, 12 whole days, for the user I was arguing with at that page, to come up with a source to back up his claims. And even then it didn't come from the place he'd been insisting it would be found. FerrerFour (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it took twelve whole days...there is no deadline, remember. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does WP:NODEADLINE have to do with the time it takes for one user to respond to a direct question from another? FerrerFour (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. See Talk:Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Percieved_elitism_section for Sports and politics

As for Ferrer, he does seem to know about guidelines et al pretty well for someone who is hardly a fortnight into the WP.

I would say Ferrer's responses here are not exactly helping him (reminds me of YRC's RfC ironically). Also see Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#David_Rudisha, though not eactly wrong per se, its another sign of such incivility that needs to change. He starts off accusing instead of posting and then continues.

Also the content is not under discussion over here, its the WAY the discussion has been done.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that through the entire discussion linked above I have only commented on the content of the discussion and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the comments I have made. In one place I refer to another editor making more implications of edit warring and explain the whole cycle of being bold then reverting and then discussing. If there is any comments of a person nature in the section on elitism please point them out to me and I shall explain them. Though my current reading of that section can find no comments of a personal nature by myself. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• FerrerFour, at Misplaced Pages, it takes more than "being right", you also have to get along. No one is asking to love everyone, but if you continue to be rude, you will it difficult to get others to be persuaded to your point of view, and you aren't going to have a very good time being here. As remarkable as your knowledge of Misplaced Pages is for such a new editor, you should also be familiar with the WP:Five pillars, the very foundation of Misplaced Pages, which uses a large chunk of this precious space to talk solely about civility. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Here's another classic example of Sport and politic's total and utter incompetence. Earlier today, he removed this from the controversies article. He did this because it defames private schools, and is a BLP violation against the British competitors from private schools. You simply cannot deal with this by simply talking about content or sources, it's a basic issue of competence. If nobody here is willing to speak out against this sort of outrageously incompetent act, and is more interested in bitching at me for telling him he has no idea what he's doing, then shame on all of you. FerrerFour (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're right that his reasons were completely wrong (BLP violation? I think not) but ironically he was right to remove it; it's not a controversy about the games, just Moynihan making a political point knowing it'll be covered due to its association with them. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's irony? I don't think so. I think it's a case of looking the other way if the outcome of bad behaviour is something agreeable to you. Sort of like Russia ignoring the bloodbath in Syria if it means they can sell more helicopters. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the latest personal comments from FerrerFour . It is clear the user is not understanding that it is not how to go about contributing on Misplaced Pages in a civil manner. Sport and politics (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let me rephrase it then FerrerFour: It doesn't matter if you think you are right, being rude is unacceptable anyway. His conduct is a different issue. Right now, I'm talking about your conduct, the reason for this report, which has been rude. "You two are really full of it. " "You really are a very silly man. " "You can talk as much rubbish as you like..." "More rubbish." "it's actually a lie" and other rudeness. Your demeanor on that talk page shows you digging in there like you are here, and it is a WP:BATTLEfield mentality, which is incompatible with what we are here with. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• • What you're basically saying is you're more bothered about him being upset at being called incompetent, rather than his actual incompetence. Good to know. Brilliant to see just where your priorities lie. All I see here is a system designed to encourage incompetence. And as they say, stupid in, stupid out. FerrerFour (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I'm concerned that you are rapidly working your way towards a block. Claiming incompetence without demonstrating clear and obvious proof in the form of diffs is insulting, and at this point, is bordering on a personal attack. You are trying to use your opinion as a justification for continued incivility and quazi-personal attacks, and you are about to run out of rope. If you can't admit your own methods are inappropriate and clearly against WP:CIVIL, then you have only proven Sport and politics right. I'm not inclined to be much more patient here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I have posted at least one bang to rights example in here, at 23:14. You made this accusation a full 85 minutes later. I stand by my comments, and I will not be lectured at by the likes of you about not backing up my claims, when it appears you are so lazy you cannot even see that post, even though it's barely a few centimetres above this one. Further evidence is on display at the controversy article talk page, the only skill required to assess whether I'm insane or not is a pair of eyes and an abiilty to read English. But I get the sense that it's a little bit of a stretch for you to go look, which rather ties into my theory that you're not interested in the least in assessing whether Sports and politics in incompetent, you're only interest is in nailing me for highlighting it. Rather than being concerned about me working my way to a block, your apparent aim seems to be to accelerate it, much like a corrupt cop accelerates a case by accidentally losing some of the evidence that doesn't quite fit with his theories about the suspect. You can call my claims opinion all you like, Sports and politics is busy ripping articles apart based on nothing but his opinions. I'm not getting any sense that one is considered more of an issue than the other by you, which is quite surprising given the primary purpose of this project. FerrerFour (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You posted where he deleted a section, that is a content dispute, not CIR evidence. Looking at the talk page doesn't support your claims either. Claiming I haven't looked at the diffs or claiming my motives are impure isn't helping your case, nor is the examples you have given. They don't support WP:CIR claims of competency, so either find better diffs, or drop the claims. In other words, I've seen your evidence and disagree with your conclusions, so you need to stop with the rudeness and personal comments. It isn't an escalation, I'm simply trying to tell you that you are wrong here, and you can't seem to get that. I'm trying to do you a favor by telling you that you need to back off the aggression or else you will end up getting blocked. It is just factual, not personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
          • That's not quite right now is it? Let's tell the whole story shall we? I posted where he deleted a section because it, according to him, constituted defamation and a BLP violation. Now, let's examine that whole sequence, with respect to WP:CIR. From WP:CIR - "Factual incompetence The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context is lacking". Please explain to everyone here, under what cultural context or mainstream interpretation, was that section's content defamatory? You can look up defamation if it helps, or you could just consider the fact it was printed in about a million papers. How often do you dismiss that sort of basic factual error, as a mere element of a content dispute? How many times pray tell, are editors who do know what defamation is, are supposed to put up with the likes of Sport and politics ignoring them? To quote WP:CIR again - "Bias-based incompetence Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively From his explanation for the removal, picking a random statement, "To single out individual competitors background which is something they have no control over is the same as singling out competitors race, gender, age...a non-story made up to sell newspapers" That statement is referencing the large number of news stories generated by a fact based comment from a high profile public servant which singled out nobody. How often do you overlook such obvious bias in the naive hope that the person has the ability to engage with people who don't share the same views? How often do you dismiss that sort of rhetoric as a healthy component of a run of the mill content dispute? Again, how many times are editors like myself supposed to put up with the pretence that people who hold such views, and still hold them even when they've been shown to be at the very least based on factual errors, is just a normal part of the to and fro of healthy Misplaced Pages discussion. I could go on, but I think I might be wasting my time if you missed even obvious examples like that. The guy is incompetent. You can either accept it, or deal with the conqeuences as the number of editors who encounter him reaches critical mass. Me, I don't much care. I don't think I'll be too motivated to contribute in future if this is the sort of environment that's considered normal. FerrerFour (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Then you take it to WP:DRN, but you don't make personal comments. That is the point I'm trying to make. You seem to think it is ok to be rude since you think he is grossly wrong. You are mistaken. It is never ok to be rude like that. If you disagree with the content and can't hammer it out on the talk page, go to WP:DRN. Again, it isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along with others. You've been told this plenty of times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Why would I take an issue of competence to the DRN? How can an issue of competence not be an issue of behaviour? To illustrate how absurd this suggestion is, given the fact he claimed he removed that section as it was a BLP violation, then if I accepted your premise, I would actually have to take that 'content dispute' to the BLP noticeboard, not the DRN. Can you imagine the reaction if I sent that there? They would likely question my own competence, because there's no competent editor out there who would ever agree that that post violated BLP. Not even if applying the biggest dose of reasonable doubt you could imagine. I can accept misunderstandings and good faith errors, but it should be obvious to you by now, as it was to me long ago, that S&P still believes that was a BLP violation, inspite of being given multiple pointers to the contrary, because the underlying issue is his basic inability to understand Misplaced Pages. FerrerFour (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list so far of the policies Sports and politics has shown he has no grasp of, by either completely misusing them, or invoking them in circumnstances where no reasonable person would ever agree they applied:

• BLP
• NOTNEWS
• NOTE
• 30
• NOTFORUM
• RECENTISM
• NPOV
• NOR

Here's a sample of some the various actual arguments he's been making on the talk page that show that he has no grasp of the various wider issues that you need in order to have a sensible and productive discussion about current event type content and its eligibility under policies like NOT#NEWS or NPOV:

• Misplaced Pages using the same terminology as a newspaper is original research
• Newspaper articles are just one persons opinion
• This sort of coverage is "one newspaper"
• Not adding commentary in an article about how many newspapers didn't cover an issue, is "cherry picking" sources
• Something is not a controversy if only newspapers in one country call it one
• If newspapers have different accounts of an incident, then it's not a notable incident

I could go on and on, he is propogating this sort of nonsense in every section of that talk page for crying out loud. How much more evidence is needed that this guy is total and utter incompetent? He needs to be stopped, before he does some real damage to the reputation of Misplaced Pages. What is the point in creating all those policies and guidelines, if nobody is prepared to condemn the people who willfully ignore them, or stop the people who can't understand them? FerrerFour (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the above is highly misrepresentative and is not what is at issue here, if at all. What is at issue here is the uncivil comments and general rude and abusive nature on Wikipeida that FerrerFour is exhibiting . An exampl eof the above being misrepresntative: the Kim Collins issue is about weather it a "controversy" and not about one newspaper. An editor said it was called a controversy in a newspaper and I responded by saying that was just one newspaper calling it a controversy, where as other sources were not calling it a controversy. It is not just this article or me this user is uncivil towards. The comments being made by FerrerFour are now starting to be highly disruptive as they are preventing genuine constructive discussion from occuring. Sport and politics (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Every single item on that list comes from things you said. I dare you to deny it. And here we have another example - you claiming that because some sources don't call that event a controversy, then it's not a controversy. What you somehow forgot to explain, is the nature of the coverage in all those sources, which is 100% a description of a controversial incident. Not one of them was denying it was a controversial issue, not one, yet you chose to interpret the absence of a single word in a rather more broad fashion, to make the outlandish claim that there is somehow dispute in reliable sources about whether this is or isn't a controversy. Somewhere in your mind, once you mix in links to OR and POV and NOT#NEWS, this comes out as justification to remove the material from the article. Now, having had time to observe your mind at work, I know that explaining this to you is a waste of time, you'll only repeat the claims again and again, as if that progresses anything. But what I'm hoping to do is illustrate just how pointless it is talking to you without addressing the core issue - your total incompetence. FerrerFour (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets just close this abject dramafest asap and get back what we can do best, editing. I dint want to suggest a block all around, but it seems the same thing recurs and the counterparties don get the issue. Perhaps a short block of 12-24 hrs should give thought enough to get away from the article AND realise what it takes to avoid another block. I know it seems punitive, but its also to avoid the disruption here and on the talk page. Sports and politics seems to be partaking in discussion, but he too sometimes indicates a modicum of OWNership. A trout perhaps?

Also Blackkite, the content is under discussion on the talk page, you are encoruaged and invited to contribute to that there.Lihaas (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are further demonstrations of the highly personal nature and unwarranted comments being made by FerrerFour. There is no point engaging with FerrerFour by me due to the torrent of abuse that is hurled at me. Can some action please be taken against this user to prevent this user from further disrupting Wikipeida and to prevent them form continuing their unwarranted personal tirades. Sport and politics (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The personal nature of the comments reflects the fact that the cause is a person. You are the cause of your own incompetence, not the article, not policies, not the weather, it's you. In that post I described in precise detail an example of your incompetence, and it is because you are incompetent that you have no answer to it except this whining about me. If you truly weren't incompetent, if you truly understood policies and how to make an argument with them, then you'd have been able to give a decent explanation for that sort of behaviour by now. You'd be able to outline the path of reasoning that leads us from the abscence of the word controversy from some sources, to you wanting to take the section out of the article. But you don't have this, do you? Just like you had no answer to why you threatened a user over making a FORUM post, when it wasn't one. Just like you seem to have not explained why you thought that the link I posted above was a BLP violation. Just like when you asked for a third opinion for a discussion that had already had five. Etc Etc Etc. FerrerFour (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is just another example from FerrerFour as to the fact they are continuing with wholly inappropriate commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

^^^^Like I said, this guy is not able to defend his positions, which is something any competent editor would easily be able to do. It is not inappropriate to call an incompetent editor incompetent, in the same way that it's not inappropriate to call someone who is vandalising articles, a vandal. Although at least the damage caused by vandals is easy to fix. FerrerFour (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FerrerFour Is no longer worth engaging with when all they do is make unwarranted uncivilised comments towards myself. Sport and politics (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise, in your opinion, accusations of incompetence levelled against you are unwarranted. Well I never. Who would have thought it? Case closed everybody! Now, let's get down to the seirous issues - who do you suggest we contact about the very serious defamation that the BOA chief has committed on British athletes by highlighting the public school issue. Wait, no, first let's remove that talk page post about Murdoch, as it was a blatant violation of FORUM. No, I have a better idea, let's remove all the sections in the article where we cannot prove that every source uses the word "controversy". Hang on a minute, our first priority must be to scan the article for sections only sourced from papers from one country, as they will not be notable. Etc etc etc. 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FerrerFour (talk • contribs)

FerrerFour is still failing to see they are editing in a manner which is uncivil. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Sport and politics (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Remind me again, S&P, am I allowed to remove your comment if I believe it defames me? Or does it fall under WP:FORUM? I am a living person, perhaps BLP applies? I don't know, we appear to be deadlocked. I know, let's seek a third opinion shall we? ........I am well aware that you find it uncomfortable to be labled incompetent, but when you keep dodging your opportunities to explain these multiple incidents that, to any ordinary reasonable person look pretty incompetentish, then I'm not the one whose failing at anything. FerrerFour (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with "defames me"; "defame" and its variants are potentially loaded words. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a sarcastic reference to the fact that Sports and politics had already accused another editor (or the living person quoted in the section they added) of defamation. I had already linked to that in here, so I'm surprised you never saw it. Perhaps that might be a better place to direct your NLT concerns? FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, the initator of the thread dosnt reccomend punishment because one issue is that clearly he was involved. Thats why theres the centralised noticeboard to elicit other opinion. It could turn into a BOOMERANG issueLihaas (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not recommending any action I am simply asking for some to be taken which is different. I asked for action to be taken when I opened the thread. I never suggested or recommended what action should be taken. It is for others to decide if they agree with my request for action to be taken and for others to decide on the action to be taken if they agree with my request for action to be taken. This talk is getting out of hand in my opinion. Sport and politics (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It just doesn't stop the latest comments are nothing but a tirade of a personal nature. There is little (if any) content discussion which is not layered in being highly disruptive Sport and politics (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason why FerrerFour has been permitted to call another editor directly as "incompetent" and "an incompetent" at least a half-dozen times right here on ANI, and yet still no block? They clearly have no concern for the WP:5P, or others. dangerouspanda 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that blocks are there to prevent disruption and damage to the encyclopaedia, but I can't honestly say we're at that stage yet. The discussion on here has died down since last night (presumably everyone's got tired and gone to bed), so I don't see a need for immediate action. In any case, I'd expect a {{Uw-npa3}} to be issued first. Although his comments to the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics AfD have been robust, by not !voting in the AfD they can be more or less ignored. If a topic ban passes, as suggested below, and FerrerFour decides to sound off again, he can't say he wasn't warned. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"I am a living person, perhaps BLP applies?" from FerrerFour above. What sort of argument is this? Either an incompetent one, or a trolling one. IMHO. Doc talk 09:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a sarcastic reference to the fact that Sports and politics had already invoked BLP in a completely innappropriate manner as a justification for taking a section out of article. I had already linked to that in here, so I'm surprised you never saw it. Perhaps that might be a better place to direct your concerns about bad arguments? FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban/Mentorship proposal

After reading this discussion, it seems to me that the whole thing is being tossed around and around, with Sports & politics and FerretFour arguing with everyone without trying to reserve the issue. In trying to take a bold, decisive stab at resolving the issue, I propose a topic ban for both users: from the Olympic discussions and from each other in general. Mentorship would also be very helpful. I agree that both S&P and FF have taken some very nasty swipes at each other and other users. Personally, though I feel both users at fault, FerretFour has definitely been the more aggressive in his accusations of incompetence. Both of these editors need to cool down or this could escalate into blocks. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Ferrer four has not just been uncivil towards myself but has been toward other users and on other talk pages. Here are some more examples of FerrerFour being uncivil towards other editors on other talk pages. In this edit they state "As I suspected, the issue must be your comprehension of English" . In this edit they assume bad faith and call a user a vandal by saying "we can only speculate on your motives for this vandalism" . This edit sums up the attitude being exhibited by FerrerFour stating "I couldn't give a monkeys who would disagree with me" On a user talk page ther directly call a user a "Liar" and state "The only way you could argue that's not the case, is if you didn't understand English, which may be the case", This shows a pattern of uncivil editing by FerrerFour of multiple articles directed at different editors. Sport and politics (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading this contribution to a deletion discussion underlines that FerrerFour cannot resist another unwarranted snipe at myself and to ridicule the proposer. They state when referring to the proposer of the deletion " I think it needs to be a rule that anyone who comments on this article's merits, should at least know the subject matter it refers to. I only got as far as the first line, "This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards", before I nearly fell off my seat laughing" those comments do nothing but attempt to ridicule the proposer. . Sport and politics (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

support for at least a while (olympics is over this weekend so topic ban is really futile) for mentorship. Perhaps limited to talk page not article space? See how that goes.Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support for a short term period. I think all that's really happened here is that a few people have just got carried away and shot their mouths off a bit too much. I don't think blocks are a good idea as the problem seems to be limited to discussions, rather than clobbering content, though I noticed the key article in question, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics has now been AfDed, so the whole discussion might be moot. I think the best way forward is for everyone involved to take a deep breath, go and look at something else for a week or two, and come back to this when the Olympics is over and the news reporting has died down a bit. One more thing I just want to mention to Sport and politics, since I don't think anyone else has done, is that you really don't do yourself any favours by continually saying "this is yet another example of why FerrerFour has been nasty to me". I think we all get the fact that the two of you don't get along, and he's been a bit uncivil, as has been well covered by Dennis earlier, but it's really not the end of the world, and all that repeating your grievances in this discussion again and again does is make him respond angrily. With a bit of foresight, you should have been able to see that coming. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note the latest diffs are referring to other editors on other pages. Its not just me he acts like this to it appears it is multiple pages edited on and any user who says something they dislike. Sport and politics (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody Ent 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I've had to focus on the one FF because of the digging in, it is clear that both editors have issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of us don't have the time to post here as often as some. My earlier point re the nature of the article where this all started seems to have been ignored. It's an article based on a very crappy principle, with no meaningful definitions to work from. And, FerrerFour has abused the crap out of me on that Talk page. I gave up discussing because he was displaying no rational behaviour at all. It's not just a fight between two editors. And I still wonder who FerrerFour was in an earlier life. Far too much knowledge for a two week old editor. Are there experts here who can check for past identities? HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The experts are at WP:SPI. But I disagree with the assessment -- Misplaced Pages's policies are written down (sort of) and FF's focus on the tree (essay) of competence while totally missing the forest of civility (pillar!) seems like a new editor error. Nobody Ent 11:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new editor. At least not a two-week-old one. If it is, they learn policy "pointers" at an advanced and accelerated rate. Doc talk 12:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Look at his first edit. Perfectly formatted references kind of make it obvious, not to mention the wikilinking. Hot Stop 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In reviewing just this topic and some of FF's contributions elsewhere, FF's conduct is beyond the pale. Their comments are belittling, sarcastic, condescending, and arrogant. I, too, do not believe they are new to Misplaced Pages. Their conduct is classic willful "I know best" and deflection of the discussion from their inappropriate conduct to issues of everyone else's alleged incompetence. I would block FF for persistent non-collaboration and attacks unless they promise to (1) discuss article content appropriately and (2) accept mentoring. (As an aside, I note that FF has made 59 article edits and 100 other edits since arriving here.) I have no comment on Sport and Politics.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, both mentoring and topic ban, the latter for perhaps a week or two until the Olympic coverage tails off. Then we could review the situation. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll follow suit with Bbb23. In addition, topic banning User:Sport and Politics seems grossly inappropriate. (Think about it. Facing a stream of insults at the article Talk, she comes to ANI to get support to bring a stop to it. And as a result of her coming here, you wanna ban her. Even though her behavior here at the ANI was faultless, and the behavior of User:FerrerFour was atrocious. And further ... had she *not* opened the ANI, she would not find herself the subject of a topic ban . Had she had a crystal ball, and known that by opening an ANI for support to stop the abuse, even though her behavior at the ANI was exemplary, that she'd be subject to a topic ban as a result, ... then perhaps she wouldn't have chosen to come here at all. The whole deal here is surreal and derailed of any rationality or fairness.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. Although FF has clearly been more blatantly uncivil, I can see evidence of ownership issues from S&P, for example here : "It does not belong on this discussion the above comments are the kinds of comments which are liable to be redacted and removed for being off topic." Also, you make a topic ban sound worse than it actually is - as stated above, I think it would be better for everyone to look at something else (why not review a good article?) for a few weeks, then come back to talking about controversies at the Olympics when it's all over, the tabloid reporting on it has died down, and everyone can look at it with a fresh pair of eyes. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your example as an indication of ownership issues. Why do you think so?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of that is that S&P was telling someone else that discussion comments on a talk page were likely to be removed, which I can't see a justification for. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But that would be a misinterpretation of policy, not an ownership issue, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see that I have probably been a little wrong with my interpretations on the issue of it being a soapbox, but I am still learning what is what. Can I please ask how I am meant to stop a user hurling abuse at me if I am to be sanctioned by being banned as well. Can I please have some evidence displaying that I have acted in such a way which merits being sanctioned in the same way as FerreFour. I will happily look at the evidence if it is presented to me. I cannot see how I have been making continual personal attacks and disrupting Misplaced Pages in the same way FerreFour has. Bbb23 is right how can I reasonably stop abuse. I am not behaving out of line on this ANI and I have not focused on editors and only on content. I was commenting that the issue itself was not appropriate for the topic with regards to my misinterpretation of soapboxing. I was not stating the user was anything of anything. Can it please be explained what I am meant to do to stop abuse being hurled at me if I am to be blocked as well? Sport and politics (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You weren't a "little wrong", you got it totally wrong. Three times you accused that user of having violated WP:FORUM, even though each time inbetween he told you that you were wrong, giving you every chance to realise why. Still you persisted. Even after I also told you it didn't violate WP:FORUM, you responded "Please make sure you know what your talking about" to me, and AGAIN repeated the claim that it was a violation. Only now, after a THIRD person has told you it wasn't a violation, does it seem to be permeating into your skull that maybe the issue is you after all, while making the absurd comment that you only got it a "little wrong". And I'm the one that people are trying to punish in here for highlighting this lack of competence? FerrerFour (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the personal comments by FerrerFour are highly uncivil and need dealing with. I have not made any uncivil comments here, FerrerFour just rolls them out. This is highly disruptive and FerrerFour seems unable to see they are doing anything which is inappropriate. phrasing like " permeating into your skull" are highly confrontational and uncivil. How can I reasonably stop this level of abuse? Sport and politics (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was seriously considering blocking you. A temporary topic ban is simply a formal request that you refrain from editing or discussing a specific area of Misplaced Pages for a short while. You'd still be free to edit other areas of the encyclopaedia. Click here to see more about what bans are. Having said all of that, admitting you might have gone a bit over the top as you've done is a good step towards avoiding a topic ban altogether. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Sports and politics & WP:CIR

Before the kangaroo court concludes, in the interests of history at the very least, I feel the need to illustrate in a separate section the precise type of editor you are trying to punish me for exposing.

• Would a competent editor call this content a BLP violation?
• Would a competent editor, in a single post, make the following errors:
  • Claiming WP:NOTE applied to article paragraphs
  • Claiming that directly quoting a source is Original Research
  • Claim a 3 day old incident had no evidence of lasting notability (?) (as of today, 6 days later, the coverage continues)
• Would a competent editor have thought this talk page post was a violation of WP:NOTFORUM?
• Would a competent editor be summarily redacting other users comments like this?
• Would a competent editor continue to comment in an archived section?
• Would a competent editor have thought WP:3O was appropriate after 5 people have commented?

I have restricted these examples to only those cases where the error can be seen in seconds by an actual competent editor. In most cases, even though he was made aware of his error, he has stood by these judgements, repeating the claims. Would a competent editor do that? If there is any will in here for people to investigate further beyond these simple examples, then if you read his various statements as a thread, while also looking at the content, then it becomes obvious he has similar issues with understanding policies like NPOV. And as can be seen, the incompetence ranges across all fields - content policy as well as talk page & discussion norms. This editor is a textbook case of an incompetent editor. It's appalling that nobody seems in the least bit concerned about that, and seems to only want to reward his incompetence by punishing the person who highlights it, i.e. me. FerrerFour (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an analogy for you. An editor violates 3RR. He does 6 reverts, none of which is exempted, in the space of 4 hours. He's blocked for 24 hours. In appealing his block, he says, "But my edits were correct" (and they were, actually). The admin declines to unblock him.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FF has persisted in their disruptive behavior despite a clear warning from TP. Would a member of the kangaroo court please show them to the door of Misplaced Pages? Nobody Ent 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. For 24 hours: thinking time. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Extended and talk page access revoked for the continuing hearing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentally ill or incompetent editors

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

I don't come to Misplaced Pages often enough to really answer Help Desk questions, but this is one I felt needed some clarification. I don't think sending the person here would necessarily be the right answer, but there wasn't a clear answer on the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please see WP: CIR. Second of all, I'm sure that there are some editors here with mental illnesses, and there is a fantastic admin here who wrote an essay on editing with mental illnesses here. Electric Catfish 21:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR is covered, but another answer said "off-wiki" and I have gotten no response from the person who wrote that as of yet. I will add that second one to the Help Desk response, though. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And we got a response about how to report the person.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Felipito1.966

Felipito1.966 (talk · contribs)

This user has been performing largely unconstructive edits throughout his edit history, mainly changing US spellings to British in defiance of WP:ENGVAR and adding Spanish diacritics to non-Spanish names (such as geographical and biological names in the Philippines). He would stop at nothing, even turning a working link into a red link (see this and this). His blatant defiance WP:MOS has been pointed out numerous times (see his talk page's history, especially his removal of comments) and he replies extremely rudely (including a very uncivil e-mail to me). With this long history I concluded that he was beyond final warning and nevertheless posted a Level 4 warning. Then today he did a similar edit again. He had been warned by so many editors, yet he called every recent poster of his talk page "dictators". His British English supremacism needs to be stopped. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked his responses to Alphathon just now and they smack of arrogance. So what if you're an English teacher?--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's also a report been filed at WP:AIV. -- Dianna (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

1. One of the discussions should be closed (and a trout for that), 2. can you provide he diffs of all thats alleged? The one diff doesnt indicate wrongdoing.Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The AIV report has now been closed by another admin. -- Dianna (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of his edits are about changing ENGVAR spellings. Just look at his talk page's long history and compare indicated articles. He even changed others' spellings in talk pages! HkCaGu (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I agree that the user was unnecessarily incivil in his conversation with Alphathon, this isn't as simple as that. Just looking down his contributions, a lot of his changing spelling from US to GB spelling is on UK or English related articles (i.e. Beeching cuts, English language in Europe, Robert Grabarz, G4S) which of course is correct per ENGVAR. There are a few that are debatable (Ruby Wax), a few that are clearly wrong (but mainly because they broke links rather than being wrong per MOS or ENGVAR) and a few that were just incorrect and should've been simply reverted. In this particular case, considering that HkCaGu issued a vandalism warning for this edit a WEEK after it was made - which is frankly ridiculous - I'm not entirely surprised he reacted poorly. You should've just reverted it and explained the problem that it broke a link. And I'm certainly very unimpressed with your bolded "If you do any further unnecessary WP:ENGVAR edits again, I will get you blocked" on his talkpage. Don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see any issue here beyond a bit of mild POV pushing. It's quite common for British people, particularly those who work in academia or schools, as this guy seems to be, to feel quite strongly about use of US versus British English, particularly if they're on a US hosted site. Frankly, it's exactly what I'd expect a new user with his background to do, but as long as he follows the manual of style, there's no issue. And I agree that threatening to block a user when you've got no real rationale to do so isn't particularly civil - watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou

Esoglou seems to be suffering from WP:IDHT, growing more divisive as the conversation progesses. Originally, his argument was that the Holy See did not have a coat of arms, even giving quite the lengthy discussion about it . This was easily contradicted by the Vatican's own official website , which is titled "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and the State of Vatican City" (emphasis added) and goes on to show only one coat of arms. An editor, Enric Naval, provided a source in Italian which he could not read . That source went on to describe the arms of the Holy See and even provided an image; Esoglou rejected this source completely, text and image, because the image was a line drawing. Embattled Grady appeared with several more sources and stated he agreed with me, saying "Therefore, I tend to agree with Bellae artes" . But Esoglou ignored these further sources as if they didn't exist, or, worse yet, thought they aided his argument and even began stating that both editors were in agreement with him, saying "I wonder what Embattled Grady thinks of your way of getting out of the conclusion that Embattled Grady and I drew" (even though Embattled Grady already stated he was in agreement with me as earlier shown) and "the view also of Enric Naval" (when Enric Naval merely proposed someone read his Italian source he could not) . Eventually, Esoglou admitted to the fact the Holy See has a coat of arms, , but now contends the Holy See's arms are the same as the papal keys and is bringing in sources describing the keys in the pope's coat of arms to extend this argument long past its closure. He went so far as to quote a partial sentence from abook describing the keys used to adorn papal coats of arms, then he went on to explain how this was actually meant to be described as the coat of arms of the Holy See and nowhow the Holy See's arms are technically not drawn with keys and tiara but the emblem of the Camerlingo .

All in all, he he is ignoring proper sources provided to him, even the Church's own website describing its on coat of arms, and then misrepresenting the other editor's view points, ignoring consensus and putting misconceptions, myths and what-I-would-dos into the article rather than facts. I would ask an admin step in review the sources (and feel free to ask any questions needed, since I know heraldry is not a common knowledge topic), and put an end to this argument so we can get back to correcting this article and expanding it. Bellae artes (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a series of misrepresentations! "Originally, his argument was that the Holy See did not have a coat of arms": it was the explicit statement of two independent secondary sources that led me to that opinion, which I later changed when editors (not Bellae artes) presented other sources that I consider more reliable. "This was easily contradicted by the Vatican's own official website": a reference to a press release in English (one that was inaccurate even in its description of the illustrated coat of arms as having the tiara placed above the shield, while the Italian text of the same release correctly says the tiara is above the keys within the shield), a subheading of which, "Coat of Arms of the Holy See and of the State of Vatican City", appears to say (but presenting this interpretation, as Bellae artes does, is a case of original synthesis) that the two entities have the same coat of arms, while on the contrary the Italian text on the same "Vatican's own official website" speaks only of a coat of arms of Vatican City State and only of an "emblem" of the Holy See, the clearly distinct emblem and the coat of arms being illustrated on both the Italian and the English pages; this Italian page of "the Vatican's own official website", quite as authoritative, to say the very least, as the English page, seemed to confirm the statement of the two independent secondary sources. When Enric Naval presented an Italian source "Esoglou rejected this source completely, text and image, because the image was a line drawing": I certainly did not; as soon as an image of a 15th-century "escutcheon of the Holy See" was identified in it, I accepted that, at least in that century, the Holy See did have a coat of arms and commented only that we lacked a statement about the present situation and an indication of the colour of the field in the 15th century. Embattled Grady then produced sources that indicated both that the Holy See has (now) a coat of arms and also information about the colour of the field in the past. According to Bellae artes, "Esoglou ignored these further sources as if they didn't exist". On the contrary, I immediately declared that contribution "quite convincing" and remarked that the information it provided indicated that the keys of the coat of arms of the Holy See are arranged not as in the coat of arms of Vatican City State but as Enric Naval had argued both on the Talk page and in the article itself (where Bellae artes promptly reverted his contribution); in that sense I remarked that, while Embattled Grady had rightly said he agreed with Bellae artes (on the present existence of a coat of arms of the Holy See and on the colour of the field even in the past), "it can be said that" Embattled Grade agreed rather with Enric Naval on the principal point of discussion: Is the coat of arms of the Holy See identical with that of Vatican City State? It is Bellae artes who is ignoring the contribution by Embattled Grady, by objecting that the "papal arms" mentioned in the book on heraldry from which Embattled Grady quoted are something different from the coat of arms of the Holy See. Esoglou, Bellae artes says, "is ignoring proper sources provided to him, even the Church's own website describing its on coat of arms". Bellae artes is presenting only one source and using synthesis to create from it support for his claim that the coat of arms of the Holy See and that of Vatican City State are identical, and it is Bellae artes who is refusing to change his conviction, as I have done, on the basis of the evidence presented by other editors. Esoglou (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy Wall of Text Batman. *snerk* How about both of you be brief in your points? Hasteur (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor is ignoring sources that expressly state the Holy See has a coat of arms and what that coat of arms is, you can see the arms on the Holy See's own website here. Other sources have been provided, which can be found in the text above, the Misplaced Pages article Coat of arms of the Holy See and it's talk page. He has reluctantly given in to the notion of the See having arms, but now has continued to argue with a different baseless claim--that the colours in all of the sources are wrong--despite the official site of the Vatican, a Catholic encyclopedia, a book he himself used to verify the Holy See has a coat of arms, a book listed archived by the Italian government and other quotes from other editors, his argument that the colours are wrong is based upon half a sentence he quoted about papal emblems, unaware he is confusing two distinct (though in appearance very similiar) devices. Bellae artes (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Urklistre

• Urklistre (talk · contribs)
• Talk:16:10 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to file a complaint against User:Urklistre, for his conduct during the dispute on the 16:10 talk page. He shows several signs of a disruptive editor, including tendentious editing and failure to engage in consensus-building.

Examples of his conduct include (in roughly chronological order):

• dismissing the sources I provided as "just opinions" , " more valid than mine or yours" , "noob sources" , "noobs comments" , "not serious" , "neither relevant or significant" , "low quality blogs" and containing "false statements" and "factual errors" , and the statement backed by those sources as "simply false" and "a paradox" , without any supporting evidence or explanation
• accusing me of being biased and deleting "research" , again without evidence or explanation
• aggressively telling me to "back off"
• calling the whole discussion a "farse" (sic)
• indicating intention to resume edit warring as soon as temporary protection is removed from the article , directly below a comment from a moderator encouraging us to resolve the dispute through discussion, rather than reverting
• editing my comments without good reason or my permission (a violation of WP:TPO), under the pretext of "equality", but with the apparent goal of disrupting my argument by removing emphasis from where I felt it was needed to accurately convey my argument
• lying about the status of the dispute
• failing to participate in dispute resolution processes (attempts at both WP:DRN and WP:3O failed due to no response from him for a week )
• accusing me of trying to sneak in non-consensus content and deleting "important info" and "reliable sources" (in reality I just proceeded with my proposed edits after no opposition from him for several weeks and per advice from another editor )
• editing and reverting disputed content in the article without discussion or consensus, something he has been called out on several times
• claiming that my proposed version "isnt covered covered by sources and also isnt correct", once again without any evidence or explanation
• categorically declaring that my proposed version "wasnt accepted 1 month ago, it isnt accepted now and it will not be accepted in the future" , that "it isnt an option" and that "it can't be in the article" (a possible sign of article ownership)
• baselessly accusing me of refusing to collaborate , despite my repeated attempts to resolve the dispute through discussion
• deleting a comment of mine (another violation of WP:TPO)
• repeatedly editing and deleting significant sections of one of my comments . Permission was originally given only to edit in order to improve or clarify, not to delete. The permission was later explicitly retracted and requests were made to stop , thus further edits constitute a gross violation of WP:TPO. The edits also constitute an apparent attempt to sabotage the WP:3O process by making it harder for a third editor to get involved in the dispute (see this comment by User:No More Mr Nice Guy during the previous attempt at WP:3O, requesting precisely what Urklistre is now trying to prevent from being provided - both my and his proposed versions for the disputed section).
• accusing me of violating Misplaced Pages policies with regards to consensus , even though there was at that time (nor is as of the writing of this) no consensus to yield to

Overall User:Urklistre has been extremely difficult to work with. He refuses to participate in proper dispute resolution processes, fails to address legitimate concerns raised about his proposed edits, and at the same time completely disregards evidence and explanations provided by me for my proposed version, as well as another editor's tentative approval for it . His policy of "edit first, discuss later (if at all)", combined with the baseless accusations he keeps throwing around, is counter-productive to the goal of reaching consensus and indicates an overall desire to "win", rather than to collaborate. Indrek (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Promotional editing

I hemmed and hawed over bringing this here, but this is just so overly promotional that I can't entirely ignore it. Two editors Stephenat01 (talk · contribs) and Kateohichi (talk · contribs) have added about six articles to Misplaced Pages promoting movies and people that have no notability. They're all tagged in one form or another, but what I've noticed is that the two users are working in tandem with each other. All of the articles are related to each other, which leads me to think that the two are either one person socking or two people meat puppeting for a specific director/company. This is all so blatantly done for promotion that I just want to nip this in the bud now because it looks like they're just getting started. There's also an IP that has been removing AfD templates (as well as PRODs, but that's not technically against the rules unless it's proven that it's the article creator). (75.84.156.55) Here's a few examples of the history of the articles they've created and the articles themselves: , , M.A.R.R.A Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside comment: an article creator may remove a prod tag (WP:DEPROD).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Editors may be blocked for spamming.
• Although there are plenty of notices on the two editors' Talk pages, no one has talked to them.
• Kate hasn't edited since August 5, and Stephen hasn't edited since August 8 (at least not using their accounts). User:75.84.156.55 has edited twice today (UTC).

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Verbally abusive, rule-violating new user

New user Lecale42 (talk · contribs) has used this edit summary: "why in flaming fuck do you need a citation for Dan Ackroyd's appearance. It is verifiable by watching the film cunt slobs)" here. He then estored a reverted edit without discussion by using an uncited OR here

He responded to those requesting citations by writing, "those who can be arsed doing more than just adding pointless citation requests to the article here, and he reverted an editor who signed that unsigned response by claiming he doesn't have to sign his talk-page comments, here (though WP:CITE says, in boldface, "Sign your posts."). All this is as recent as 22:50, 9 August 2012. He's belligerent, foul-mouthed, verbally abusing, refuses to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and clearly doesn't belong here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already being dicussed here. He's new, he doesn't seem to understand policies too much yet, hopefully a friendly talking to at WP:EA will get the message through. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The substance of Lecale's edits is being discussed at EA, not the incivility. I might add that despite several very experienced editors trying to help Lecale, xe doesn't seem to get it, at least not yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Although his language isn't exactly polite, he does seem to be arguing (albeit badly) against policies rather than actually attacking anybody per se. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "flaming fuck" is okay. Calling other editors "cunt slobs" is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal info

There may have been an attempt to add personal info to Misplaced Pages that may have been harmful to living persons. It was deleted but could an admin remove it completely from the history? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting in the request for oversight (suppression). Matters like this should usually be escalated straight to WP:Requests for oversight, doubly as it can't be done by administrators. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have used revision deletion to hide the edit, but I agree that oversight is appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed, thank you for warning the at-fault user. I was looking for a template but not finding one. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Shonda Rhimes

Can I have a few other admins put this article on their watchlists? A cursory look at the page history should explain everything. Jauerback/_dude. 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, crap. I agree. Way too much vandalism. TBrandley 15:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked the IP again over their personal attacks/declaration to continue edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, even though I've never edited the article outside of reverts (I don't even know who she is), I was beginning to feel involved. Jauerback/_dude. 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Son of BOSS

Son of BOSS is in the news and needs help. Maybe protecting, maybe warning/blocking users. Jesanj (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A block has been made on the most disruptive IP so problem solved for now. Jesanj (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC) That was an old block, not a current one on the IP. Jesanj (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day.

User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Misplaced Pages group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Misplaced Pages has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take this accuation of trolling by User:Br'er Rabbit to be a completely unprovoked personal attack. —MistyMORN 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and dram-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways/Archive_4#RFC_on_coordinates_in_highway_articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario_Highway_401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_placed_on_probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards