Misplaced Pages

Please can someone tell this "Bunny" to take Whatever this is away from my Talk Page? Thanks, TF 11:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please can you undo your undo which put unreferenced information into the BLP and - if you want - discuss it on the talk page Talk:Shaiwatna Kupratakul. Thank you. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it. TF 11:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Now He is insulting everyone else on User Talk:Jimbo Wales. TF 11:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Titus, he called us "ammeters", which is a "measuring instrument used to measure the electric current in a circuit". Not the greatest insult in my book. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you positive? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• rimshot* Ha. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

Found a sock: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATitusfox&diff=639932019&oldid=639929916 https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/88.104.24.116 clear as a England based IP can be. and started a SOCK investigation request. Legacypac (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A clearer diff showing the socking of Igor and 88.104.24.116 can be found here. 88.104.24.116 posted a message on GorillaWarfare's talk page. A moment later Igor changes the signature to his username.

IP GeoLocator (located at the bottom of each IP talk page) shows 88.104.24.116 is located in Manchester, England.

This edit in particular is particularly concerning. It shows Igor trying to game the system by acting like another user who is being supposedly wronged by Legacypac and I (or others).

Clearly from this ANI thread, the two AN/3RR reports, the user's behavior and now clear socking and gaming of the system, it shows Igor is clearly not here for constructive editing. I recommend (as have others) that Igor be indef-blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good God, it's a witch-hunt!

Yes, I'm in Manchester. Is that a crime? maybe it should be

Yes, that's my IP addy. Congratulations, Sherlock.

"Found a sock"? Because I edited with an IP? Sheesh.

I've done nothing wrong. I've confirmed my prior history with GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs), in confidence. She's an arb, so I hope that's good enough.

No socking, no gaming. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was alot of hot air for nothing. Explain why you used an IP in this edit to pretend to be another editor. You didn't correct your username as you did in this edit. Getting signed out sometimes happens, I don't call people out for that, shit happens. What I will call people out for is gaming the system, which you attempted to do in in this edit. Now, please explain why. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I had to reboot my PC and forgot to log in. Simple as that. I didn't even notice; if I'd noticed, I'd have logged in and changed the sig. Is all. I can't see why that is 'gaming the system' - what was the gain in that edit? It was utterly obvious who I was. Why would I be being sneaky when writing in this thread about me that "The users above are now harassing me"? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you do such a thing? Lemme see, adding another "person" who is being wrong might help your case that you haven't done anything and Legacypac and I (along with others) are just being mean to you. It's happened before...many times before...so it isn't unusual. If you have been here before (which is socking in my eyes), then you should know this, so don't act surprised. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your concept of 'socking' is not in line with policy. There is no "mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction". None of it. Just someone who hasn't edited for years making an account, so they can (in some days) move a page. You're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. I've "confessed" to an admin/CU/OS/Arb, what more do you want? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ease up. That's not such a big deal. If Igor wants to edit constructively we should support him. The tone of his recent posts isn't so bad. Let's let him have another chance. Igor, please work harder to avoid edit wars or other actions that rile other editors. Your friend the arb isn't enough to prevent you being blocked of there's more of that. Let's close the thread and move on. Jehochman 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What might still need discussion here is, the conduct of Legacypac. " ran out of steam after a marathon of maham session? Or maybe went back to his other acct?"

The user has constantly harassed me - accusing me of being a 'sock' with no evidence, filing 2 EW reports, and following me (and reverting me) on an unrelated article.

I'd like to go edit articles. I can see how it looks bad that most of my edits thus far are to ANI/talk pages etc, but the reason for that is all the harassment.

I've changed username, I've disengaged from the disputes, I've tried to explain all my actions.

Therefore, can I please ask that action will be taken if such harassment continues. Igor the bunny (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaiwatna Kupratakul

• Shaiwatna Kupratakul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have an impasse;

I found this BLP article in a cleanup category. It had been tagged since 2009; so I removed some apparently unreferenced info and put it on the talk page, and explained in the edit summary -

Legacypac reverted me, incorrectly calling it vandalism , I undid that, saying Not 'vandalism' at all. Please see WP:BURDEN. Don't add it back without refs, thansk (sic) .

Legacypac reverted it .

I undid for a second time, saying Please do not add unreferenced info to this BLP. Please discuss it on the talk page. WP:V WP:BURDEN

Titusfox (talk · contribs) reverted that - thus adding back the unref'd info to the BLP.

I politely asked Titusfox to undo , twice , three times .

But Titusfox has not undone their edit, and has said "Don't ask, 'Cause I won't do it.". .

That means Titusfox has added unref'd info to the BLP, refuses to undo it, and has made it pretty clear they won't discuss. What do I do about that? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a contest ~by bunny against himself, how far can he go before he gets banned again. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, walk away from conflict and do less contentious editing to build up a new track record for yourself. Jehochman 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So True. And Legacypac, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. TF 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And Also, IDK what happened and don't want to so that's why I Won't Revert. TF 13:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Reblock discussion and poll

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

Note for future reference: {{gender|GorillaWarfare}} -> she NE Ent 16:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking my comments from my talk page for those of you following along at home. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock - Since GW's not taking any further action aside from saying they have no objection to the unblock being reversed, we are back where we started. Jusdafax 22:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, back. Apologies for the delay—sometimes real-life gets in the way. To be clear, my unblock here was in my admin capacity—I'll state if I'm doing something on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Anyhow: this user has confirmed who they are to me. They are in good standing, and their edits as User:Igor the facetious xmas bunny are not in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. They did edit three times from an IP address, but I don't see how they were deceptive—there was no question that those edits were the same user, as they were responding to the same conversations. I'm a bit perplexed at what exactly it is that Igor did that was disruptive enough to deserve the original block. I agree that the speedy-tagging seems pointy and poorly-thought-out, but it also hardly seems block-worthy to me. The edits to Jimbo's talk page were criticizing AfC, but criticizing a part of the project isn't against policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@GW: Without revealing anything personal about the editor, did Igor identify him- or herself in a way that allowed you to check (within policy) that the identity they provided was actually theirs? And is it your understanding that this new ID is in the way of a WP:FRESHSTART? BMK (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes to both. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. In looking at Igor's editing, do you think that it is consonant with the instructions at WP:FRESHSTART? (That's not a disingenuous question, I haven't read the policy lately, and am about to turn in for the night.) BMK (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Igor's edits went against that policy, no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Igor has been declared "disruptive" when this started by another editor failing to WP:AGF and discuss the matter on their talk page before filing an ANI, as is standard practice. NE Ent 03:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reblock: I crash for a couple hours and this is still going on? I'm with Jusdafax on this one. A reblock of Igor is requested. In line with the summary User:Nick posted when closing the threads above, there is consensus with admins (and other users) for Igor to be reblocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock: as per all of the statements from the above, including from Neutralhomer and the admins Nick, Neutralhomer, Jehochman, Chillum. I'm convinced that he broke WP:TROLL on Jimbo's talk page, but that's the tip of the iceberg. I don't think GorillaWarfare objects either. In addition, having read WP:FRESHSTART, which GorillaWarfare has confirmed is the case, I don't think Igor has acted within the spirit of the policy, causing havoc within a few short hours of freshstart, which suggests bad faith for the freshstart. In addition, I think that his username breaks WP:USERNAME policy through the use of the word facetious (Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour; flippant). I think this particularly applies in the case of a fresh start, where it is important to to suggest the reason for a fresh start as being one of good faith; it is suggestive of a troll account. If Igor is not reblocked, at the very least he should be made to change his username to one more appropriate for a good faith freshstart. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  The inclusion of "facetious" in the username is definitely not against the username policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That may well be the case in normal circumstances. But taking into consideration that it was supposedly a good faith freshstart which was controversial enough to cause a block within a few hours of the new account being opened? If a reblock is not felt appropriate, perhaps a username change should be demanded to one more consistent with a good faith freshstart? It would make me considerably happier if this was the case, it would persuade me that any further editing would be in a more civil manner. I really feel that his username in conjunction with his behavior is highly inappropriate. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Note: For the record, I am not an admin, just an experienced editor. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Apologies! --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• None necessary, was just clarifying. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support reblock There are two sides to sock puppetry, there is evading your past which GW has confirmed is not the case. But the other side of sock puppetry is avoiding scrutiny. Creating a new account to act disruptively is evasion of scrutiny, not only should the new account be blocked but the parent account should at least get a stern warning. Even if this is not evading scrutiny(and it is) then acting disruptively is not acceptable on its own regardless of the past.

If this was a new user then their edits could be seen as lacking in experience, since we know this is an experienced user then actions such as placing BLP tags on the pages of people dead for over a century cannot be seen in good faith. This person was playing dumb to get away with disruption. If this is a "fresh start" then this user has already spoiled it. Chillum 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Chillum if Igor's freshstart (xmas bunny) account was blocked, would he breaking his freshstart pledge if he went back to his parent account? Would there be any repercussions to doing this? --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• In this case only GorillaWarfare would know which account that was, so I suppose it would be her decision. Chillum 00:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not supposed to be Misplaced Pages's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS).

If any admin really wants to wheel war with a sitting arbitrator ... Perhaps those calling for a block could provide the following. 1) Links to the actual policy or policies bunny is violating and 2) diffs of the violations. Note that WP:TROLL is an essay on meta, that doesn't count. NE Ent 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare as stated that her "unblock here was in (her) admin capacity" and she would state if she was "doing something on behalf of the Arbitration Committee". She also said "would not consider a reversal of the block to be wheel-warring at this point".

So your first point is moot, as is the second. Throughout this post, there have been numerous policies linked and diffs provided. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent If you don't like WP:TROLL try WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL 2 (a) Taunting or baiting. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Who was, or how was, bunny taunting or baiting? By pointing out that a WP:AFC process with a backlog of three thousand is a healthy, functional process? NE Ent 23:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I would comply, but it would be a fair percentage of his posts. As Neutralhomer says take a look at the text above. I'm not here to hand-hold you. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Take a look at Jimbo's talk page for LOTS of baiting and taunting. That's just a fair bit of his edits, the rest are here, his SPI and on his talk page.

At this present moment, Igor has 207 edits, only 42 are related to editing. 4 of them are related to edit-warring on the Shaiwatna Kupratakul, 4 of them were on the Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently article, which is what started this mess.

His first edit was on a user's talk page regarding the contentious Draft:Igor Janev, his following eight edits were playing word games in the main sandbox, followed by what can only be described as complaining on Jimbo's talk page.

Of his 207 edits, 165 were on Jimbo's talk page, ANI, the SPI related to him or on user's talk pages regarding the mess. There is a slew of edits that are ripe with baiting and taunting. Igor says on multiple occasions he was going to disengage from the Jimbo's talk/ANI/SPI mess, only to come back an edit or two later.

Nothing, from his first edit to his last show the user is his to edit constructively, but to cause problems, taunt, bait and hide behind his so-called "good standing" previous account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Status-Quo, and move on. The community should be offering support and assistance rather shutting the doors to a second chance. — Ched :  ?  23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block I still can't see any rationale for an indef here. Being irritating wasn't one, the last time I looked. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If I am not mistaken, WP:NOTHERE covers most areas of being irritating, some of which I believe Igor falls under. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In addition it has never been adequately been explained why his block has been lifted. The explanation is that it was done under his being a WP:FRESHSTART, but if anything it makes his behavior seem worse; an experienced editor is unlikely to make rookie mistakes, and if anything it makes his behavior less excusable than if it had been a genuine new account. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Jules brings up a good point. If Igor is a previous "user in good standing" then he would and should know the rules of Misplaced Pages, how to act and not act. He wouldn't start off by causing so many problems. As Jules said above, since he is a WP:FRESHSTART user, any bad behavior should be viewed as worse since they should know better. A brand spankin' new editor is excused when he goofs or is a jerk first thing off the bat, they're new, they're learning. But a FRESHSTART editor already knows the rules and any problems caused aren't and shouldn't be as easily excusable. FRESHSTART editors should be held accountable for those problems even more-so than a brand spankin' new editor, since of their previous experience with the project. FRESHSTART isn't an excuse, it's a fresh start, not something to hide behind while causing problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bunny, for your work. Carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And what work would that be, exactly, that is so deserving of your accolades? BMK (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, Ken. But as an editor in good standing Bunny has contributed to this collaborative volunteer project in some way, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to acknowledge that. Like GW and some others here, I can't see anything in the editor's pre-block behaviour as Bunny that would possibly justify a block (and so far I see nothing in the post-block behaviour to justify one) ... perhaps a mild telling-off is in order, but a block is way over the top. Jehochman, you really need to reassess the alacrity with which you dish out blocks. If Bunny starts seriously misbehaving, that's another matter, of course, but to date I see nothing warranting a block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh Anthonyhcole what relationship do you have to this bunny? Are you the same person? Because I can see you share a like for Jimbo's talk page and like bunny are very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and processes. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No and no. I do understand your annoyance, but Bunny does seem to have thought your article deserved deletion under A7. It says something about the care with which Bunny reads - as does tagging a long-dead subject as a BLP. Please take more care in future, Bunny. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac - It's not such a good idea to sort of randomly accuse editors of socking on such a flimsy basis as that they both post on Jimbo's talk page and both know Misplaced Pages's policies, especially since that description fits a heck of a lot of editors. It's been established that Igor identified his old account to GW and GW verified it, so there's really no reason that we should be looking for a current editor of whom Igor is a sock. The issue now is whether or not Igor is being disruptive enough to be re-blocked, and whether his return to editing was consonant with what is expected from a fresh start.

If Igor was smart, he would abandon the Igor account and start with another one as a real fresh start, avoiding all the drama he created with this one, and he would inform GW in confidence that he was doing so, and the name of the new account. If Igor was able to fresh start successfully, avoiding all the pitfalls, no one would connect the new account to this one, and we'd be back to square one. If Igor is incapable of doing that, it would soon become evident that the new editor is Igor. BMK (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support re-Block The body of evidence says the bunny is NOTHERE. A fresh start does not mean a concealed user history gets used to justify forgiveness of current stupidity. In addition to the sins outlined above he managed to convince me and a check user he was likely a globally banned sock master. His user name correctly describes his approach to editing here. He pushed a bunch of rules right to the edge while mocking other editors trying to contain his craziness. If the editor wants another fresh start using a new account under a proper name, that's fine, but the bunny needs to be banned. They wasted most of a day of my editing time and a lot of other people's time with pure stupidity.Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's high time that we stop coddling disruptive trolls and provocateurs under the guise of following WP:AGF. If the project is going to make the atmosphere less toxic and more supportive of productive editors, we need to start getting rid of the disruptive elements who do not contribute to the improvement of the encyclopedia. That, first and foremost, should be the standard by which editors are judged. BMK (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Igor hasn't edited for 32 hours. I think they've gotten the message and hope they will do better in the future. If there is fresh disruption, any admin can issue a block to stop it. Jehochman 03:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

...or perhaps he ran out of steam after a marathon of maham session? Or maybe went back to his other acct? Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the unblock by GW emboldened this user to go on a tear. It may be this user is waiting for the heat to die down before coming back. If the user comes back and engages in productive editing while avoiding disruption then I am all for letting things go, but I would not would my breath. Chillum 08:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Chillum, if he comes back and demostrates he can act and edit in accordance with the rules/policies, then I would be willing to let this slide. Like Chillum, I'm not holdin' my breath on this one either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well my view is at the least a username change to not include the word "facetious" should be granted, due to his dubious user history. But I'll go with consensus on this matter. If someone could assess consensus it would be appreciated, and then maybe we could move on, or at least until Easter :). --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also support a username change per Jules above. I also agree that consensus needs to be assessed as we have consensus for a few things, but no real decision. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? What's the issue with the word wikt:facetious? We wouldn't block "silly bunny" or "sarcastic bunny", why would we see a violation in "facetious bunny"? If it was "trolling bunny", sure, but this...nah. Whatever other issues the editor has, trying to nail them for some sort of username violation is a pretty big overreach. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well in my book facetious is not that far trolling. There is a whisper of difference between them as far as I am concerned. But I agree that you may not feel that way. And on its own it may not be a concern. But combined with him very dubious editing history (blocked within a few short hours of a supposed good faith freshstart) it leads to a very different conclusion. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've placed a username change request, . I don't agree that there was a problem with the name, but I hope that might alleviate some of the concerns.

Are there any remaining concerns? Or can I get on with editing? Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Change has been done. Igor the bunny (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I believe, with the above section now 48 hours old, and with multiple support !votes for reblock, among other things, we need to have a decision so we can all move on. Is there an uninvolved admin willing to close this ANI thread and decide consensus one way or another? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

bunny has now leveled accusations of edit warring against me on an Arbitration Committee member talk page, accusations that have been seemingly accepted by that AC member and another Admin. However, the whole accusation is based on a lie about the timing of events. See how in bunny's 1st paragraph diff #1 is over 5 hours AFTER diff #2 yet bunny says diff #1 (walk away comment) was before diff #2 (he goes off to edit something else)? The crap continues. Nothing has changed. Had he filed this at 3RR it would have been boomeranged into a block on him. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wut? Igor the bunny (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but, srsly, 'wut'? I do not understand that post.Igor the bunny (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Is there an uninvolved admin willing to close this ANI thread and decide consensus one way or another before this blows up once again? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer I think patience may be needed here. The truth of the matter is only GorillaWarfare knows the full details behind Igor's freshstart. Without knowing that, a hasty block may again lead to a hasty unblock, and yet more frustration. I really feel that Gorillawarfare, who is the only one of us who knows the full details of the case, needs to give us further input on the matter.

I've been away for a bit, but from a brief looks there seems more trouble brewing. Maybe a case of WP:ROPE? But at least he has a better username now, and for that I am grateful. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously the unusual - if sadly not abnormal use of "WP:ROPE" to mean 'if we hassle this user enough, they'll probably get angry enough to commit some actionable misdemeanour and we can block them". That's possible, I guess; I'm human. But for now,

The only reason for keeping this thread open is to consider sanctioning Legacypac for harassment. If you wish to pursue that in the thread, it's fine by me.

But if you insist on pursuing the attempts at blocking me, please at least show the courtesy of stating what I have done wrong, with some diffs. Thanks. Igor the bunny (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support temporary IBAN between the Bunny and Legacypac for a bit. I'd rather see them avoid each other than continue down this path which has nothing good at the end. (I know that WP:IBAN often has "fail" written all over it, but it may be worth a shot. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a heads-up that the discussion continues at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Igor, where Mrjulesd might find the input they're requesting. (If not, please let me know more specifically what you are looking for...) I've already discussed this half to death there, and tried to assuage Legacypac's concerns that I was misled by a timing error, or that my service on the Arbitration Committee somehow affects this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for that GorillaWarfare. I was wondering, would you feel it to be appropriate to close this case, for the reasons I have previously given? I feel if anythings are getting more complicated, and when that happens the noise tends to drown out the facts. If you don't feel that would be appropriate, maybe you could suggest an admin to do so? To be frank I don't know a lot about procedures here. Or would you feel waiting is a better option? The risk with that is that further editors could get involved further muddying the waters. But I really feel a decision should be made based on the further views expressed, at some point at least. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's too complicated - if there's something you don't understand - please ask for clarification. No point brushing it under the carpet.

As far as I can see, I've done nothing wrong. Nobody seems to have contradicted that in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, the very fact that there is a lengthy thread here makes most people think, clearly they must have done something wrong. Especially with this being a new account with few edits.

It's important to note that the reason that I have made few edits outside this arena is because of this thread. I just wanted to edit stuff; not to argue.

It will - as usual - be nice and neat to close this thread down, but it misses the real issue; that new (and 'apparently new!') users are harassed to death over perceived 'controversial' issues, and whether they have done wrong or not, they're quite often splattered with a banhammer regardless of the merit of the discussion.

The longer a discussion continues, the more likely it is that others will just support block or something, merely to close it down, instead of dealing with the real issues.

Above, you can see people shouting for blocks - with not even the merest attempt at justifying why.

Ched is very well-meaning, but suggesting an interaction-ban is just another way of stopping the argument without resolving it.

Personally, I don't care all that much, and I imagine this will be closed down soon, because that is far easier than dealing with the real issues - those being, the way new editors are treated (and are blocked by the peanut gallery). Igor the bunny (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "new account" and "new editor", but hey, it's your WP:STICK ( — Ched :  ?  01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

True, Ched, but as an experienced editor who looks like a new user, I am perhaps better-placed to see the problems. Igor the bunny (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

Many articles are being created which are Wilayat type and most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks Legacypac and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just self promotion or propaganda)? or should we stop their creation? How can we have them SALTed? Mhhossein (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. For a start Misplaced Pages has long had a practice of translating Wilayat to Governorate of Province. WP:AT issues similar to those raised when the group called themselves "Islamic State" are raised as both elements of that title are disputable. A governorate, province or wilayat requires the existence of a state which in this case is not recognised either governmentally or in academia. A name such as Wilayat Sinai is suggestive that large areas of the Sinai have been governmentally controlled which is very far from the truth. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking hard and have only found one vague ref that says the ISIL linked group controls ANY territory in Sinai and considering the Sinai is nearly all desert, anyone could set up some tents and claim to "control" a bunch of ground. It is absurd to give them a name on WP that suggests they govern anything - regardless of what they choose for a twitter handle. Now how do we SALT exactly? Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles have been deleted. If there are reliable sources that document that Daesh claims to have set up administrative units in various places, then I don't see why we shouldn't have articles to reflect that fact. Yes, they're absolutely horrible people and I hope for their imminent total defeat, but we're not in the business here of pretending the world is not as it is. I don't see enough of a problem with recreation at the moment to justify salting any article titles. Lankiveil 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

See Gregkaye's point - no State = no subdivisions of the non-State. It's not even about if we like ISIL or not. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As Legacypac mentioned this is not exactly about liking or disliking ISIL. The fact is that creating such articles is a clear self promotion and using Misplaced Pages for propaganda. As I understood, Lankiveil thinks that ISIL may be recognized as an official state by countries in future! If this is the case we should not do any thing for recreation of the similar topics. However I think it is not the case and ISIL will stay as a terrorist organization for ever because of its Ideology and beliefs and because their behavior show that they have problems with almost every one. I reckon two things might happen: 1) ISIL stays as a terrorist organization (because of above reasons) 2) ISIL faces a total defeat as Lankiveil hopes. In both cases we won't have officially recognized provinces of ISIL.Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Whether Daesh is recognised as a 'state' or not is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. If sources become available describing these entities, then we can and should provide coverage of some sort. Lankiveil 08:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

No one objects to covering their activities in any part of the world, but not under article titles that say they are the legitimate regional government (that is what Wilayat means) of Baghdad, Raqqa, London or New York. If they declared a Wilayat of London (they want to raise the flag of Jihad on over Buckingham Palace after all) or State of New York would we start an article for Province of London (ISIL) or State of New York (ISIL)? Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Which sources will cover the official control of lands by ISIL? How is it possible? Why should we spend times on deletion process of such non-notable articles? New cases are appearing and we are still discussing here! Mhhossein (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The newest one absurdly gives ISIL the Algerian equivalent of Washington DC, ya Walayat Algeria is the real life 2nd level government containing the country's capital. It's even unclear if there is a group in Algeria after the government killed at least 6 senior members including the leader in two operations this month. The editor that created this and is now defending it does not accept community concensus very well. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a bunch of them two days ago, but it does not mean I think there should be any special treatement for these. If there are sources, lets find a proper title and keep them, if not delete. Just as with just about anything else. And please, stay cool, there is no need to nominate for speedy deletion while 'regular' deletion discussion is going on. - Nabla (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources at the moment for most of these it seems, but I agree we don't need a separate rule for Daesh related articles. Our existing notability criteria and process will do nicely. Incidentally, we have plenty of articles on places that are claimed not to officially exist. Lankiveil 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Your examples prove the opposite point. The Republic of China article details the situation of a widely recognized country's current admin districts (just the parts they control) and a map of the 1945 situation showing the areas they used to control. There is no Municipality of Beijing (ROC) article today. Everyone agrees Transnistria exists as an admin unit and agrees which government is responsible for local issues, the question is if it is an autonomous part of Moldova or independent, as discussed in that article. There is no separate articles for Transnistria (Moldova) and Transnistria (Independant). Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The only sources claiming that there are ISIL Wilayats are ISIL and quotes by ISIL that appear in a small number of sources that are actually reliable, which include the quotes to inform readers of some of ISIL’s claims. Including information about how ISIL claims it controls Wilayats in the ISIL territorial claims article is in compliance with policy on primary sources. Actually writing articles about ISIL’s supposed wilayats when only primary sources are available is a pretty clear violation of policy on notability and on no original research. (Seriously, imagine how many articles on micronations we would have if the only requirement for their creation was that some person or group with a Misplaced Pages article claimed that they owned and operated their own country). In theory, we would have to create these articles if they actually started getting coverage and analysis by primary sources. However, in the present these articles are completely non-notable (and there is not a strong enough indication that they will become notable in the near future to invoke WP:IAR), so they should be deleted on sight.

At this point in time, I believe that the best solution to non-notable wilayat and redirect articles is to delete them through the normal AfD/RfD process, and then speedy them if they are recreated. I’ve been looking through many of the ongoing wilayat deletions, and most of the wilayats were actually created before the conclusion of the mass ISIL wilayat AfD. I fear that we may be jumping the gun a bit on some of these nominations, and that this may result in wilayats being kept because of technicalities. The best way to prevent this is to follow the letter of policy when deleting them. Most of the so-called wilayats have already been deleted in various AfD discussions, so I believe the best solution is to speedy delete any recreated wilayat articles and redirects and to nominate any new ones for standard deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Spirit of Eagle:. Why not stop their creation by having them SALTed? is there any reason for not doing this? Mhhossein (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I normally like to wait for several articles to be recreated and deleted before requesting SALT since demonstrating that the article has been frequently recreated makes it more likely that SALT requests will be approved. However, WP:SALT does allow for pre-emptive restrictions, and you'll have my support if you make an official request. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of SALTing but there are various ways to spell Wilayat and the various city/regional names, Province is a synonym, title without (ISIL) have been created, al vs ar etc. so an infinite number of ways to skirt the SALTing of an exact title. A centralized updated list of deleted titles and deletion discussions is the best idea I've got right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilayats of ISIL & related list

Please feel free to update this list:

Previously deleted through AfD, RfD or various speedy deletion criteria

1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
25. ISIL Caliphate
26. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
27. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
28. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)

Closed Deletion Discussions

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
8. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or Redirected

1. Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
2. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
3. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group as its a real place, a province of Algeria
4. Template:Provinces of ISIL Jan 1 creation, requested speedy delete
5. Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_1#Wilayat_ar-Raqqah_.28ISIL.29

Related issues

1. Problematic rewrite talking about supposed the ISIL government Raqqah
2. Ar-Raqqah Governorate (content issues, title is ok)

AlexanderRa and original research at Diversity Immigrant Visa

Despite attempts at discussion, I've been unable to stop this editor continually adding their own original research at the Diversity Immigrant Visa article. Back in the autumn they added this section, based on their own spreadsheets and analysis, which effectively argues "although the government says X, the real situation is Y." Another editor, JoelWhy removed the material and discussed it with them, requesting a third opinion which agreed that, yes the material is original research. AlexanderRa simply ignored the third opinion and readded the material. My attention came to the article when I discovered this huge link farm, which I removed per WP:EXTERNAL. AlexanderRa, however, keeps readding it, presumably because it contains links to the spreadsheet analysis which they want to promote. Attempts at discussing this with them have proved fruitless, as they simply respond with vandalism warnings () and as they appear to be a single purpose account, there also seem to be WP:COMPETENCE issues here, as they simply aren't listening. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not a link farm. Dozens of links were removed including references to laws, agency regulations (DOS, USCIS), articles by US law firms. All those links are very relevant to the subject of the article in Misplaced Pages and are definitely not a link farm. Repeatedly removing those links is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the original complaint was misstated. Valenciano did not complain about Original Research. Instead, he complained about External References and about link farm, and he removed dozens of links that could not be and cannot be classified as those. AlexanderRa (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I *did* complain about the original research here and here. This is what I mean about not listening. Yes, I did remove dozens of external links, because Misplaced Pages articles, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, should not contain dozens of external links. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. The guidelines are clear, links should be kept to a bare minimum. Even a quick look will reveal that links 4,5 and 7 are dead links. I'm sure they are not the only ones. Other links are invalid, such as links to spreadsheets created by AlexanderRa, which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section. Others are for things like discussion forums, while four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer. There's also the issue of the huge original research section that he's added there, also contrary to our guidelines, and despite being told by three editors that this is material more suitable for a blog, not for Misplaced Pages. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano is a distinguished vandal. First, he or she removed removed almost all the links from external references section without any explanation other than WP:EXTERNAL. I undid his contributions, and he removed them again, again without any explanation except WP:EXTERNAL. Only then I started warning about vandalism on the page. As he mentioned, he put WP:EXTERNAL explanation, not giving any details. He also complained about "link farm". He or she started complaining about original research only later, to make a cover up, when he or she realized attempts to vandalize the page under illegal WP:EXTERNAL were uncovered. His attempt to reclassify his vandalism under another clause is a cover up for his initial vandalism. Now, let's talk about his arguments he is stating now. Link discussion forums contains an important legal document that was posted to the forum by a distinguished lawyer Gregory Siskind many years ago when lawyers did that for free. Now those documents are available only for a fee from paid services. Another link four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer is an artile prepared by a very distinguished lawyer Ira Kurzban, and his website Ira Kurzban is in fact his real website. That could be seen by the ip address, that could be obtained by ping command. If you do not know how to do that, I could explain, I am a computer professional. He or she also tried to vandalize the page by removing a couple of dozens of other perfectly valid links. One can see how bogus Valenciano's arguments are. I am sure he is capable of creating another set of bogus arguments. The reason is not I am not listening. I am listening very well. He has not provided any arguments yet why his original classification WP:EXTERNAL was valid. It was not. His or her attempts to reclassify vandalism under another clause are not genuine. Just a cover up for his or her initial failure AlexanderRa (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section". No the reason is different. The external link section has several dozens links that were carefully collected and saved. Vandals like Valenciano should be prohibited from modifying wikipedia sources, because they act on bogus suspicions while modifying the sources, not according to logic. That is not how wikipedia policy is done. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano suggested to, and I asked him to file Vandalism report on behalf of Diversity Lottery Page, because it is not easy to do that for an occasional wikipedia user like myself. So I believe we are currently considering the vandalism report. If we are discussing anything else, that means he filed not what he promised to file. Then vandalism report needs to be filed ASAP. According to the name of this page I suspect he filed something other than vandalism report. about this page. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for over 9 years. If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked. Ever. I've already explained to the user that if they feel they have a case they should go to WP:AIV, though such a report is highly unlikely to be successful. Asking me to file a vandalism report against myself is just ludicrous. Misplaced Pages articles DO NOT contain links to absolutely everything ever written about the topic, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Distinguished lawyers are just as prone to everyone else to trying to spam us with their services. Those Wolfsburg links say: "having a good lawyer will help to ensure success in properly preparing the application. Should you wish to review your options, we invite you to contact Bernard P. Wolfsdorf..." If that isn't veiled spam, I really don't know what is, nor do I see why we need the link repeated three times. WP:EXTERNAL is very clear on that: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum..... In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website." I'm at a loss as to how dead links like this one, of which there are several, belong in the article. While some of the others are to official government websites, that's covered by WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included."

Nor is there any attempt above at justifying the original research, which is what this is really all about. Several editors have now explained to them that the addition of their own analysis, based on spreadsheets that they have created is clearly unacceptable, but they just ignore this. A section which effectively argues that "although the government says X, the real situation is Y" backed up by primary sources created by the editor adding the material is against our WP:OR policies. Is anyone else going to weight in here at all? Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had a fairly frustrating discussion with AlexanderRa regarding the concept of original research. Right when it appeared he was beginning to understand the concept, I became extremely busy at work and wasn't able to follow up. I had hoped he would have removed the material that clearly amounted to original research, but I now see that has not been the case. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The material is still there, as are the links he's added to his own spreadsheets in the external links section. I've tried to explain this to him as well, but as you can see above, he resists its removal, becomes hostile and starts throwing vandalism accusations around. We'll see if anyone else comments, but the WP:OR is plainly unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the original research and excessive external links need to be removed. I am going to start some clean-up right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing Wolfsdorf's website with his articles was to make certain things available to the wikipedia readers that are never mentioned in official government websites. Like the fact that you could be chargeable to a spouse's country of birth or parent's country of birth not only in cases when the direct text of the government sources says (when your country of birth is not eligible), but in some other cases as well (for instance, when your own country of birth is eligible) that are dictated by case law. However, now I understand that wikipedia policy does not allow including those sources because they come from websites of distinguished lawyers. So I modified the wikipedia article to exclude those references and those facts as well (because I am not aware of any other references to sources of those important facts). Thanks for clarifying the policy. I did not object about WP:OR policy, however, I though it was an attempt to cover up initial clumsy explanation about WP:EXTERNAL. Now I understand that wikipedia policy just does not allow references to case law that comes from lawyer's websites, because of a dangerous potential to be "a veil of a spam for a lawyer". Thanks for clarification. AlexanderRa (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is we think differently. I know content and do not know policy. You do know policy but not the content. You remove my contributions with WP:EXTERNAL meaning something that I have no idea about, while I have no idea why you do not like my links. It is obvious for you those links are not allowed. While I made a research to find them to get the right info and had no idea they are potentially dangerous. I see someone attacks my contributions under a bogus reason, and I clearly see him as a vandal. Then he switches to WP:OR when not able to explain me why he said WP:EXTERNAL. BTW, I needed several different links of Wolfsdorf because each of them proves something special that is lacking in direct text of the law. The same thing originally happened 3 months ago when WP:OR policy was applied. Government said" there are 3 fruit on the plate, - one apple and one orange, totally three". Making my own conclusion that 3 is an error, and there are only 2 is WP:OR. I am saying, that is not obvious for the one who knows content but does not know policy. If you guys want to attack my contributions to the article, you need to give exact reason why. Not easy for me to understand that 1+1 = 2 is a violation of the policy. Not easy for me to understand that I cannot reference lawyer's websites because they are not trusted source. You should say websites of lawyers are not trusted, explicitly say that. Saying WP:EXTERNAL is not enough, because I know why I included those links, but do not know the policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe wikipedia policy has important limitations that does not allow writing about anything other than extremely simple things. If so, you need to tell me so, I would not just try to write about complex stuff. AlexanderRa (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolfsdorf 2007 Says "A Japanese-born national (Asia) who is married to a European-born national can cross-charge to Europe and automatically increase the prospect of selection ...". Wolfsdorf 2013 changes this example to "An Argentine-born national (S. America) who cross-charges to South Africa automatically increases the prospect of selection ...". If you follow the process you would know that both Japan and Argentine were always eligible. However, if by 2010 Japan would become ineligible, the first example would be not so much impressive than the second one, that is why I enclose both. At the same time official instructions Official Instructions say only "Can I still apply if I was not born in a qualifying country?

There are two circumstances in which you still might be eligible to apply. First, if your derivative spouse was born in an eligible country, you may claim chargeability to that country. As your eligibility is based on your spouse, you will only be issued a DV-1 immigrant visa if your spouse is also eligible for and issued a DV-2 visa. Both of you must enter the United States together using your DVs. Similarly, your minor dependent child can be “charged” to a parent’s country of birth. Second, you can be “charged” to the country of birth of either of your parents as long as neither of your parents was born in or a resident of your country of birth at the time of your birth. People are not generally considered residents of a country in which they were not born or legally naturalized, if they were only visiting, studying in the country temporarily, or stationed temporarily for business or professional reasons on behalf of a company or government from a different country other than the one in which you were born. If you claim alternate chargeability through either of the above, you must provide an explanation on the E-DV Entry Form, in question #6. " allowing cross-charging explicitly in case your own country is not eligible and saying nothing about that if your own country is eligible. I reference Wolfsdorf as a trusted source to prove the point that your own country being not eligible is actually not relevant to be able to cross-charge to spouse's country. I believe Wolfsdorf got an award for being one of top 10 immigration lawyers in the Nation, former AILA President, and won a lawsuit in US Court of Appeals (Kazarian). At the same time I was not able to find any other trusted references about being born in a non-eligible country is not relevant to cross-charging to spouse's country of birth. That is why I include references to this lawyer's websites, and that is why I included this reference twice - 2007 and 2013 (because examples differ). If when attacking my contribution you started by asking me why I included those links, I would understand the reason. Instead, you mentioned WP:EXTERNAL without any explanations, you used examples that are very relevant and were not a link farm from my standpoint to "prove" they are link farm, and you did not mention you consider those articles were biased. How on Earth could I know that you consider them biased? Of course, I considered them as an indication my contributions were attacked by a vandal, repeatedly three times without relevant explanation. The same about all other links I used. You should have stated instead that lawyer's websites are biased and are not allowed because of that (not because of WP:EXTERNAL and should have provided a direct link to wikipedia policy about lawyer's websites. Then I would not see attack on my contributions as a clear case of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) When you are saying I could file a vandalism case on my own, I am telling you that is not so simple as you think. It takes a lot of time to figure out how to do it. I wanted to start figuring out how to do that after the fourth occurrance of vandalism. I have never filed cases against vandalism before, because my contributions were never attacked without a relevant explanation. And you suggested you would do that yourself. Then you changed your mind after the fact saying "would you really think I would file the case on behalf of myself". Yes, I would, because you had offered so. I am still not sure how to do it and whether I could do it only after 3 occurances, not after 4. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think I do not know a lot of wikipedia policies and my contribution could be attacked again and again by other wikipedia users is the same manner that could be seen as vandalism by a layperson like myself in the absence of relevant explanation. I think it is not easy to contribute to wikipedia under this type of hostile environment. You are supposed to clearly say what exactly is wrong, not just refer to WP:EXTERNAL. As I said, when I figured out you did not have any additional ties to WP:EXTERNAL, I saw that you switched the case to WP:OR, when you read more about this page. Of course, I considered that as a persistent attempt to vandalize the page. Because if you cannot vandalize it under one reason, you make a research about the page in order to figure out what else is wrong with it, to find another reason to vandalize it. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexander, you're not a victim here. I notified you of the OR policy months ago. You seem like a bright person, yet you refused to understand how your work clearly violated OR. So I brought in a third party to review. And, that editor confirmed what I had told you. You seemed to understand at that point. I shouldn't have had to babysit the page to make sure you removed the offending material. But, even if you didn't remove it, another user did. The fact that said user may have provided a different reason is irrelevant. You had already had two other editors explaining why the material needed to be removed, yet you persisted. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

JoelWhy, my contributions other than those discussed in September on WP:OR policy were attacked in December by another user. Those links to Wolfsdorf's website were perfectly legal under WP:OR policy. Another user started from links that had nothing to do with previous discussions. That is how he detected the page and attacked it. He provided more and more arguments to attack material not covered under ], and those arguments seem all bogus under either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR. And then he switched to WP:OR to vandalize material. As I said, I still do not see a clear wikipedia policy prohibiting references to Wolfsdorf websites. And that is exactly what Valenciano did not like on the page. Even if the WP:OR material is removed, the links he did not like would stay. AlexanderRa (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I perfectly understand now that logic "1+1=2, not 3, and 3 is a mistake" is WP:OR. No problems with that. Referencing to either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR however, does not cover vandalising those links with case law explanations that Valenciano vandilized without adequate explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked". I agree, that looks really funny. AlexanderRa (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

AlexanderRa: "I have never filed cases against vandalism...And you suggested you would do that yourself." Totally untrue. I never said anything of the sort. My only interaction with you was in this section and on your talk page and I don't see any such suggestion. Can you quote where I said that? You simply don't get the concept of vandalism at all. WP:EXTERNAL in its entirety is the reason the section was removed. Quite simply, Misplaced Pages articles do not contain an extensive list of links to everything ever written on the subject, they usually only have 2 or 3 external links as a maximum. You still don't seem to get this, despite being told several times. I see that you've now gone from one extreme to the other and are now removing valid links like this one. Please stop. Overall, there are two possibilities. One is that I am a "distinguished vandal" yet one who has never been blocked in 9 years and that means that Dianaa, another long term user, must also be a "distinguished vandal", again without blocks and that means that you are right and four other users with more experience of you on the project are wrong. The other option is that you were determined to publicise your own original research and were too stubborn to accept that this was unacceptable. I go by the principle of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Time to accept that you got it wrong and move on. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the links like this one this link is that it is not directly applicable to DV lottery, or at least there is no direct reference explaining connection of this matter and DV lottery. I took it from one of Wolfsdorf's videos, and do not clearly remember which one. If Wolfsdorf was mistaken, or if it is a veil of a scam for a lawyer, or if I misstated the missing link by those 3 references, they do not belong here. Because in the sense of you recent explanations about Wolfsdorf's website I was not sure how those 3 links are applicable to DV lottery, I removed the references. As I said, I believe I really do not understand a lot of wikipedia policies, including why those 3 links are valid links. It also seems to me you are not sure about wikipedia policies yourself. That adds one more possibility to the vandalism hypothesis - you think that you understand the policies while in fact you do not understand them. I am totally lost why those 3 links should be present. However, you should not seem lost but it looks you are as well. I would spend my time and file a vandalism report for you, however, it seems to me I would not have a case because you vandalized it on WP:EXTERNAL only 3 times, not 4. An example how to file it mentions the number 4. I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal. Also, as fas as I understand the policy, if a page is vandalised 3 times by one user by doing exactly the same thing, and 3 times by another one, that is not enough to file a vandalism report for either one, even though the total amount of acts of vandalism would be 6. I tried to understand the policies, I would say I agreed on WP:OR one, but it looks like other policies you and Dianaa are mentioning are still beyond my understanding. I also agree one should not contribute to wikipedia without clear understanding of the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would rephrase my statement. You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page. You also included a statement connecting those 3 or 4 links to ability to use spouse's country of birth even if your own country of birth is eligible. That is your contribution to the page, not mine. That information was not there before your latest change. I consider your latest change a violation of WP:OR policy, because I do not see any explanation confirming applicability of those links to DV lottery. If you disagree, please explain me why you believe those links are applicable to DV lottery. AlexanderRa (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

JoelWhy? , would you agree Valenciano included those 3 or 4 links without proper reference, and his latest contribution violates WP:OR policy? You seem to be an expert in WP:OR. Please comment. Two days ago I thought I understood WP:OR policy, but my latest understanding tells me that is a violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal." AlexanderRa you're not making any sense at all. If me removing those links on the basis of WP:EXTERNAL was vandalism, then Dianaa removing exactly the same material was also vandalism, not "a correction." Either removing the info is wrong - in which case we're both vandals - or removing it was legitimate, in which case we're not. Which one is it? Do you accept that the large discriminate collection of links was wrong?

The point is, it was not vandalism. Did you even bother to read the vandalism page I gave you the link for? "removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." In this case, the content is clearly not legitimate and the explanation was given in the edit summary. That you're too lazy to read WP:EXTERNAL or WP:VANDAL is no excuse for your actions. By the way, you want to file a vandal report, as I've told you before, go to WP:AIV and if you still have difficulty, use the talk page and ask someone there to help you, or click edit, copy one of the existing templates at the bottom of the page and change the user name and details, using the preview button to make sure you got it right. You claim to be a computer engineer, yet can't figure out something so simple? Really?

"You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page." Again, totally not true. They were there. You removed them with this edit. Are you deliberately telling lies or just plain forgetful? You also haven't provided the link to where I promised to file a vandal report against myself. I'm starting to think you're just trolling now. Either file the vandal report or move on, your constant complaining, because you're hurt that someone removed your original research is achieving nothing, so there's nothing more to say to you. However, I'll be keeping an eye on the DIV page to make sure you don't disrupt it any more. Valenciano (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Let' concentrate on those links you added last. Let's proceed to vandalism issue and EXTERNAL issue after that. I also agree I misread your intention to file vandalism report on behalf of yourself. You proved it to me you did not have this intention, fair enough. Now back to the OR issue. I removed those links because when I realized the policy better I figured out I had initially added them incorrectly, and OR policy was violated. That is why I removed them. I did not do that deliberately to violate the policy, but I did not understand the policy well enough at that point. So I removed them later to correct myself. Once they were no longer in the document, you cannot say they were there. Technically they were, but they should have not been there because I violated the policy when I initially added them. In order to reinstate them you need to prove either my initial insertion was not a violation of the OR policy, or you correction of my removal was not a violation of OR policy. In either case, you need to prove those links are applicable to DV lottery cases. Please do that with the help of Wolfsdorf's pages or without them, the way you prefer. Or you have to agree you violated OR policy be reinserting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Dianaa vandalism issue and Okkam's razor there might be additional possibilities, like, for instance (among others) spending not enough time investigation the issues (they are complex ones) and whatever. Anyway, let's wait with vandalism issue or vandalism issues. Regarding me being a computer engineer, I could easily prove that if I want. For instance, by providing a LinkedIn page. I do not see your point challenging that, because I know well who I am. You cannot base your hesitation about accepting the fact that I am a software engineer on the basis that the idea of asking questions on personal wikipedia pages did not come to my mind. Yes, it seemed strange to me that I could not ask questions, but nevertheless, the idea of asking questions on personal pages did not come to my mind, true. I did not even understand the idea of personal pages until you said that. Yes, that gives me an answer how to figure that out. Anyway, at this point I want to concentrate on the issue of those 3 or 4 links violating OR policy and everyone here understanding the fact that OR policy might require removing certain information from wikipedia pages and making the pages less informative than they could be if OR policy is not followed. At the same time it is clear that OR policy has to be followed even if certain information needs to be removed. That is why I am going to prove those links violate OR, if you do not accept that at this point. AlexanderRa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Notforlackofeffort

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

It seems that Notforlackofeffort (talk · contribs)'s primary effort in editing Misplaced Pages is to wikihound and possibly wikistalk User:Davey2010. Most of this editor's edits contain jabs at Davey2010's competence; for example, see the comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Imperatriz (bus company). Even his comments directed at other editors who !vote against him do not assume good faith (assuming they don't follow WP:BEFORE or lack the necessary skill to comment at these AfDs, for example), and these comments ultimately are just a vehicle for bashing Davey2010 in a not-so-subtle manner. Since I've commented at those AfDs, I've been the target of some of that ire as well. Most of this editor's edits have been this sort of attack against Davey2010. I feel that the battleground attitude and the lack of good faith assumed by Notforlackofeffort is possible actionable, given the previous block for what is essentially the same reason, but I wanted to get other eyes on it since I am involved (having !voted in the AfDs). I had originally asked Davey2010, who had reported this to AIV yesterday, to open an ANI thread if he so chose, but given the fact that this behavior shows no sign of ceasing, I felt it prudent to do so myself. If nothing else, perhaps this will allow Notforlackofeffort to air his grievances in a proper venue, rather than through inappropriate barbs at AfDs. Thanks. --Kinu /_c 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

From my discussions with the user, it seems that they are more than happy to spend time writing walls of argumentative text but have no desire to actually help build the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically the above user has some sort of issue with me nominating articles, and instead of discussing he'd rather just insult me - There's been various discussions on NFLOE tp, my tp, BBb23's, TokyoGirls and Sams TP (I've only 5 mins got in so bear with me!), I personally believe he ought to be blocked per NOTHERE. –Davey2010 21:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Right. Perhaps there would be more evidence of me actually trying to discuss issues with you, had you not deleted it all from your talk page! You only want me blocked because you have no answer, absolutely none, when I ask you specific questions about the reasons why you want to delete article X or paragraph Y or list Z. If this is a lie, if I have yet again unfairly smeared your reputation, then by all means, go back through all our interactions, and provide the answers to all the questions you didn't answer then, here, for everyone to examine. If they make sense, if people see some logic in them that to me, is non-existent, then maybe I will change my opinion of you. Until then, I will continue to assume you long ago stopped being interested in justifying or explaining anything you do here, to me, or indeed anyone else who has an issue with it (since I rarely see you answer the sort of questions I had asked you when anyone else asks them either). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly feel like telling this idiot to fuck off but as they say "Dont feed the trolls, If I'm being honest I've never wanted to be blocked so much in my life for incivility but he just isn't worth it so I'm going for the next few hours before I do end up blocked!. –Davey2010 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Backdoor canvass NE Ent 11:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Quote your own essay. LOL. St★lwart 11:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The only positive thing about Notforlackofeffort is he writes well ... and excessively. I blocked him once for personal attacks and harassment. I then revoked his talk page access when his comments continued the behavior that triggered the block. Since that time, I watch his contributions, although not all the time, and sometimes, frankly, I don't have the patience to read the tomes he writes. My view is that he now skirts the line with his comments, meaning that he almost attacks editors but not as blatantly as before. I suspect that's intentional. Although he is obviously intelligent, I don't see much use of that intelligence in a constructive way; nor do I see any evidence of collaboration. He's one of those users who is more interested in what he thinks is "right" than he is in collaborating or even being civil. All in all, he's a net detriment to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 - I take your meaning about the editor's writing, but in point of fact NFLOE doesn't really "write well". A good writer knows how to focus their words and not overwrite, making the desired points without boring the reader. As was once said (inappropriately) about Jack Kerouac and On the Road, what NFLOE does isn't writing, it's typing. BMK (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I am extremely intelligent, even if I do say so myself. I know a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport, and I can read and understand Misplaced Pages rules quite well (especially when, on issues like NOTTRAVEL, they are ridiculously short). These are the reasons why I am apparently not welcome here - it seems I have embarrassed a lot of people here by being able to talk with some authority on a subject that is very poorly written about here, and being able to quickly spot when someone is using links like NOTthis and NOTthat to claim things that the underlying text of the rules categorically do not say. This is the only source of the disagreement between me and Davey, his name could be Susan or John for all I care about him personally. Yet I'm sensing that certain people are thinking that, rather than address these substantial issues of rule abuse and general ignorance of subjects by people who nonetheless apparently want to speak knowledgeably about, people are instead opting for the quick solution - just get rid of the guy asking the awkward questions. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone who is extremely intelligent you've colossally misunderstood what the issue is here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing worse than a dumb fool shooting off his mouth is an intelligent fool shooting off his mouth. Intelligence is a trait often vastly over-valued while other, far more useful traits, are often vastly under-valued. – JBarta (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I must be thick, as I had to read that three times before I realised you were intending to insult me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The intent was not to "insult" you. – JBarta (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

These are false accusations, and frankly quite upsetting. As I said to Kinu, I have nothing personal against Davey, and I am certainly not trying to make him afraid or upset or otherwise miserable. I am following his edits, but with very good reason - it's very clear his claims to be a "bus enthusiast" and that he "knows a lot about buses" are simply not true (I can give you comprehensive evidence if necessary). His actions show that in fact, his only interest in the topic is to try and get bus route lists and bus company articles deleted, for reasons which range from either very poor, to downright dishonest.

I refuse to accept that pointing out when Davey has, and there's no polite way to say it, told lies, or otherwise distorted the interpreation of a rule well beyond the limits of reasonableness, is in any way unfairly "bashing" him. Perhaps if someone had by now acted on these complaints, it wouldn't seem now like it's all I do here. But the truth is, it doesn't seem like anyone here cares whether someone portrays themselves as something they're clearly not, or pushes a clear agenda to delete articles and remove information simply because they want to.

And certainly nobody seemed to care when Davey accused me of vandalism, or assumed bad faith toward me when he made the quite frankly ridiculous claim that I'm only here to "save every bus article" (at that point, I had voted to keep two). Can I now claim to be upset by these actions, so he can be removed? He only started to complain about my 'behaviour' once it became clear to him he wasn't going to be able to bluff his way out of our disputes, because I have the necessary knowledge to know the subject, and I can certainly read a rule page too.

As to these accusations that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia", what about the fact that yesterday I created List of trolleybus routes in London, which was up to that point a most ridiculous gap in coverage in this supposed encyclopedia I'd seen yet. How many people who seek to criticise me can say they have achieved the same in the last day or so?

You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that for reasons which frankly don't stand up to any scrutiny - then stop him from doing so! I'm sorry, but I can't figure out for the life of me why anybody here thinks I'm doing anything wrong by pointing out obvious facts, such as when Davey says things like a list of Tallin trolleybus routes cannot possibly be encyclopedic, he is only making himself look silly, since in the real world entire books are written about such subjects (see the reference in the London list).

Either people are interested in facts like that, or they're not. If they're not, then I'm happy to leave Misplaced Pages's articles about buses and bus transport in the hands of the people who aren't too bothered about what is written about them in the real world, even though the result of such a strategy can clearly be seen - the articles on it are either missing, or just largely crap.

From where I'm sitting, there's a difference between not assuming good faith, and identifying when another editor is deliberately pushing the envelope, or has otherwise not done what he should have done according to the rules. That is the case for Davey, and indeed Kinu. Everything I said about BEFORE and Imperatriz is 100% accurate. If Kinu wants to dispute that, how about he identifies precisely what I said that was supposedly wrong? If he cannot, then why can I not legitimately assume his refusal to do so is not bad faith? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the wall of text above does a better job of demonstrating your unfitness to edit here than anything any of us can say.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. Thank you for dragging me here with the apparent expectation that I have to defend myself and explain why I am here to contribute (with examples) and why all the things I've said about Davey are true and weren't remotely examples of stalking or bad faith, and then USING THAT DEFENCE AGAINST ME. How very typically Misplaced Pages. Of course, the other option was for me to say nothing, and then you would have used that against me too. Or I could have briefly said the accusations were unfair and unjust, but not explained how or why (for brevity), and you would of course have used that against me too. Bravo. Well done for inventing the impossible game that is Misplaced Pages. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"You want me to stop caring that Davey insists on trying to delete articles just like that". What we want you to do is to stop hounding and stalking Davey around Misplaced Pages. You have said that you have tried to discuss this with Davey, when I've looked through his page history, most of the discussions you appear to have had are like this one where you actually attack him by calling him "deluded" etc. Misplaced Pages should not be used for attacking editors. The reason I refused the report at AIV yesterday was to give this the chance for more discussion and to try to reach a resolution - something AIV is not the place for. However, from what I have seen so far I would tend to agree with @Samwalton9: and that you are not here to build an encyclopedia--5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. I follow Davey because he is doing bad things, like deleting information from an article because it's "already in the source" (which makes absolutely no sense), or is proposing things for deletion because he "literally found no sources", when it turns out that he's either not looking very hard, or is just plain lying. It's telling that not one person here who is making these accusations of stalking has even taken the time to examine my accusations to see if they are true. I assume that if it were proven Davey is doing bad things, things which need reversing or challenging, then I would actually get a pat on a back for following him around. Perhaps not. I don't know anymore. The concept of how you help Misplaced Pages seems very nebulous. And on a point of fact, I didn't call him deluded, I implied it would be deluded of him to do action X on the basis of Y. It was a hypothetical situation, and if anyone here actually bothered to take the time to familiarise themselves with the subject and understand the context, they would no doubt agree that someone would have to be deluded if they did X based on Y. If that's what counts as an attack here, then I honestly don't know how you manage to communicate effectively with each other. Although in my experience, it's not so much communicating, as lecturing/ignoring. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You write: If you want me to stop hounding or stalking Davey, you're going to have to justify those outrageous accusations a bit better than they have been so far. So, you admit that you are hounding or stalking this editor, in direct violation of WP:HARRASS. BMK (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now who's trolling? Obviously I was not confessing to that - I was responding to the suggestion that I supposedly had to "stop" doing it. I would hardly be saying I will stop doing something as soon as you prove that's what I'm doing, now would I? (that was my whole point). I find it very ironic that I have been mercilessly personally attacked and now trolled in the very place where I am purportedly being reported for doing exactly that to other people. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And "Now who's trolling?" wasn't a confession of trolling either, in case you decide to double-down on the crazy. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep digging, dude, you're getting in deeper and deeper... we can barely see your head now. BMK (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you're just trolling. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that, too, is something we come across quite often, the troll throwing around charges that everyone is trolling except them. You'll find it filed under "The best defense is (supposedly) a good offense", but it seldom actually works, because who is actually trolling, and who isn't is too obvious. BMK (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt there's plenty of people here who think I'm trolling, most notably all the people who have a motive in eliminating me, clearing the way to allow them to continue to do what it is they're doing, or are jealous/threatened by my capabilities and the fact I'm not willing to bow down to their ideas of how I should best show my true worth to them (that's you, in case subtlety isn't your thing). In a way, they have to make that accusation, because it's the only thing that will, in their minds, excuse their complete lack of interest in finding out the truth of what's actually gone on (why investigate the complaints of a troll, they will tell themselves). Still, even if people do think I'm trolling, which obviously includes you, common sense dictates that best practice isn't going to be to just troll them right back. Which you've been doing for the last few go-arounds now. If it's true that I'm the troll and you're the better man, then all you have to do to show that is let me have the last word, and not say anything to continue this thread in the manner which it has been derailed since your entry into it. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going offline for at least the next four hours. Since any further participation here in any form seems at best pointless given Bbb23's insightful reply, and since I have apparently "colossally misunderstood what the issue is" according to Sam (and oh what a surprise to see a comment like that delivered on Misplaced Pages without it being explained so I might 'understand' what the issue really is), I leave it up to fate to decide if I am "stalking" Davey, or if I am simply guilty of asking him questions he cannot, and indeed does not, want to answer, and would instead very much like it to be dealt with by the questioner just being gotten rid of. I presume from now on in he will take the tactical option of not saying anything at all, as he has done before. That is after all the golden rule on Misplaced Pages isn't it - your version of taking the 5th - if answering someone would require you to admit you were wrong, or had otherwise not fully thought out your position, or admit that your subject knowledge is otherwise somehow deficient, or that you had failed to do something equally important in the grand exercise of writing an encyclopedia, then take the easiest option of all - completely ignore them. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting

• Support block - obvious troll is obvious. Has no intention of contributing to the improvement of articles and says so. Has no intention of constructively discussing deletion nominations and says so. Has no intention of stopping the bad-faith insinuations and personal attacks and says so. Has no intention of familiarising himself with policy or guidelines and says so. Claims significant intelligence, but an inability to read what others have written, argue succinctly or follow even basic discussion formatting suggests otherwise. St★lwart 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Um, if it's not too much trouble, if it wouldn't take too much time out of your busy schedule of not responding to me at the the two AFDs we have interacted at, might you find the time to, y'know, provide proof for when I supposedly said these things. I assume when you use the phrase "says so", it's a quotable thing, right? As far as I can tell, your only issue with me, until you came up with this long laundry list of supposedly quotable stances, is that I was not prepared to take your claim that you "did your own research" on Imperatriz at face value, and that I seem intent on criticising without fixing (as if there's some kind of quota - you can highlight one rule failure for every article created, something like that?). At the AFDs I was particularly interested in a reply from that time you said I "totally miss the point of most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines". This concerns me because it's precisely the sort of thing someone would say if they were simply trying to smear another person in the hope they never get called out on it (it might even be a "personal attack" on my intelligence, but I know you absolutely abhor those as they are against policy, so I must be wrong on that at least). Believe it or not (and you clearly don't - hey, I like this AGF thing! I'm getting the hang of that one at least), I've always been very careful to read and at least try to follow the rules here, otherwise how could I possibly criticise people like Davey for not? I would be a hypocrite, and if there's one thing I hate being, it's that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where you've addressed queries to me, I've responded, in fact you've quoted one such response where you have subsequently not responded. Rather ironic. The exception is where your diatribe was simply a thinly veiled personal attack. I have no particular desire to afford you another soapbox from which you can attack other editors. You've been here for how long and you have one pointy article and a dozen personal attacks to your name. I don't know what the "quota" is but most would suggest it should be better than that. Also ironically, BMK sums that up perfectly below. St★lwart 08:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a simple request. You listed several things above that I supposedly said. If it was the other way round, if I was attributing statements to you here and refused to answer your request to back them up, you would no doubt be screaming the roof down by now. I don't care about quotas, I care about the rank stench of hypocrisy which is gradually enveloping this whole thing. And I see no irony in my failure to respond to "Yes, I conducted my own search. If you found something I didn't, feel free to post it here. Otherwise, your accusations of bad faith, your personal attacks and your non-policy nonsense have no place here.", since I don't actually even see a question there. What I actually see is a repetition of this idea I talk "non-policy". My request for that to be substantiated still stands too. If this is anything to go by, you appear to be practicing the theory that if you repeat something often enough, people will just believe it anyway, whatever the truth of the matter. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This dif probably says more than most people would need to reach the conclusion that you're WP:NOTHERE to build encyclopaedia - you openly admit you're, "really not interested in doing it for you, and I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Misplaced Pages". I suspect you'll get exactly what you wish for. Plenty of diffs have been provided and given how few contributions you have, finding more isn't hard. I'm afraid I'm just not willing to do the leg work for you. You've told us many times you're not interesting in contributing. I don't need to repeat it. St★lwart 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess half out of three will have to be good enough for everyone here then. If that's all it takes to support what were some pretty outrageous claims, so be it. Why would anyone want to put their name to such an obvious sham? This matches up with how (which I only just noticed) you apparently invented this claim that I had suggested Davey must "prove non-notability". I suppose that's where you got the non-policy nonsense from. A little twist here, a little distortion there, and hey presto, a narrative. Proceed straight to NOTHERE, do not pass go. This sort of thing appears to be your particular speciality. Either that or this sort of thing just comes naturally to experienced Misplaced Pages users, those who are genuinely 'here to contribute'. Yes, I think that about wraps it up for me - I wanted to show just how much you were having to invent in order to support this smear campaign of yours, and I think I just have. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Must be my SuperTrollGoggles2000 - I'll make a note to thank the manufacturer. You're either here to contribute constructively or you're not. You've told us, on a number of occasions, that you're not. Explain which part of "I certainly wouldn't ever put my name to Misplaced Pages" I'm distorting or twisting. They're your words, not mine. St★lwart 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said they're not my words. My issue is that your words, that 'I'm not here to contribute' is not something I have ever said, it is entirely your invention. You just made it up, out of pure expedience, to hasten this little hate-fest along. In other words, you lie. Just like Davey made up the fact he's a bus enthusiast. As soon as you start giving a shit about things like that, I'll start giving a shit about contributing here. Feel free to snip the last part of that sentence and transform it into 'OMG, he doesn't give a shit about contributing to Misplaced Pages!' any time you like. I expect it will make an appearance soon. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block - In four months here, 74 edits, only 7 of them to articles, the majority (46) to Misplaced Pages space, with 21 to user talk (with the results outlined in the complaint above). This is the very definition of a free-rider who is not here to improve the encyclopedia, but for other purposes entirely. We don't need such non-productive people here, so block him/her until they promise to spend the majority of their edits improving articles, and to stay away from Davey. BMK (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, my rationale has nothing to do with creating articles, but with improving articles by way of editing them. You spend your time trolling instead of editing articles, and, in my opinion, that makes you an unwelcome guest, and is reason enough to block you and make you persona no grata. This is first and foremost a project to build an encyclopedia, not a place for random people to do random things. BMK (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A "free rider" is someone who demands that I use my expert knowledge for free to improve Misplaced Pages in an area it is wholly deficient in, after they've first used their non-expert knowledge to imply faults in articles where none exist, and have then proceeded to variously insult, frustrate, annoy and generally ignore me, all apparently in the name of collaboration. My contributions have not been random, they have been focused on preventing the wrongful removal of information from bus related articles, and the wrongful deletion of bus related articles. If that's what you call not helping to build/improve an encyclopedia, I bow to your superior judgment. After all, what would I know about whether or not Misplaced Pages is doing a good job summarising all the available reliable independent information in this subject area? Based on how many times I've been begged to write an article here, quite a lot. In all my time here, once I've been made aware of them, I have done nothing but consistently apply your own rules, rules that several of you, Davey chief among you, apparently do not want to follow, or want to interpret in ways that are simply unjustified. If that's what you call trolling, then you've obviously never met a real troll. A real troll is someone who ignores, insults, frustrates and annoys you, in the name of collaboration. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can't improve articles, create or fix templates, help with categorization, or do anything else that's actually useful in building an encyclopedia, than you're not needed here. There are plenty of productive editors who can do what little you do, and without the trolling and badgering. BMK (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people here able to stop Davey and Charles degrading the overall quality of bus related articles here with their NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore tactics? I think you might want to check that claim for factual accuracy, as the quality of the articles that remain doesn't bear that out. Tokyogirl recently claimed to me that there is a consensus on Misplaced Pages that bus route list articles are always deleted. Why not take a guess at which two users were apparently heavily involved in establishing that, based on the examples she offered? Hell, why not examine whether it's even true based on those examples (it really isn't - not that she, or anyone else, is prepared to admit it - per the Misplaced Pages 'taking the 5th' rule). And as well as the poor participation levels involved in that issue, why not take a guess at the level of intellectual rigour those discussions to establish that supposed consensus involved, as far as critically examining Misplaced Pages policy goes. Here's a hint: Deleter - these fail NOTxyz. Keeper: How? Deleter: They just do. If you think you have plenty of people involved in this activity, you either didn't really research which area I was getting involved in here, or you want this area to be deliberately degraded. There is apparently so few people involved in this activity, that when two of us come to light, as you can see above (or it might be below, I lost track where I am) it is being automatically assumed we are one and the same person. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to block. Yes, User:Notforlackofeffort is uncivil, but, frankly, WP does not block for common-variety incivility. Moreover, I believe the editor is contributing (albeit in an inefficient way sometimes). The edit to Imperatriz (bus company) was a good contribution. I also believe his opposition to the to AFDs in question, while hectoring and hard to follow, were in the end correct. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

They exist but they don't meet WP:GNG. They shouldn't have been created; you are the only other person who seems to think they are notable. That's your right but NFLOE is clearly trolling. St★lwart 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block Notforlackofeffort has created one article while Davey2010 doesn't seem to have created any. As Notforlackofeffort is a comparatively new editor who has only made a few edits, he's winning on the NOTHERE front. Regarding civility, it seems to be six of one; half a dozen of the other. They are both trying to put each other down and neither comes out of it looking good. An interaction ban might be needed but for now, a caution seems adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight ... Because I haven't created any articles that means it's perfectly fine for the insults?, Also I clearly here despite his behaviour apologized in an attempt to patch things up .... I'm sorry but "They are both trying to put each other down" is utter rubbish and you know know it. –Davey2010 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, sorry, but that's an insane rationale for opposing a block. An uncivil, harassing troll with a grudge gets a free pass because he's created a single article? He created it to make a point a few days ago. That's not "content creation" in any meaningful sense. Just more trolling. And more people than just Davey2010 have been the subject of personal attacks from NFLOE. St★lwart 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• If a personal attack is defined as playing the man not the ball, then by Christ I've been subject to quite a few here - including from you. And I think you'll find the only point I was making by creating that list, was that it didn't exist before I created it. As Andrew spotted, it was meaningful content creation in the sense that it's one more article than Davey has created on Misplaced Pages, ever. It was only after I created it, and then Davey started claiming in the Tallin AFD that such lists are "not encyclopedic", did I realise I could use the reference it contains (a whole book solely about the trolleybus routes in one city) as an example of how wrong that view really is. Honestly, I would really really like to know how making this sort of perfectly valid observation on Misplaced Pages is considered "trolling". I can't see it as anything other than bringing real world facts to a place which, where this editor is concerned, seem to be thin on the ground (this might be a good point to ask you if you even realised that, despite the fact Davey is from Strood in Kent and has said he is a bus enthusiast who knows far more about buses than I do, he didn't even know the single thing that makes the operator that runs right through his home town, Nu-Venture, more notable than the average company. He literally didn't seem to have a clue what it was.) So, is he just inflating his supposed knowledge of buses so that people more readily believe his claims when he says things in AFDs about companies like Nu-Venture? Or is he just not from Strood (although why anyone would pretend to be from Strood is beyond me). 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notforlackofeffort (talk • contribs)

• So we've gone from insulting me to now insulting the area in which I live in, ..... You my friend are a pathetic waste of space, You really are!. –Davey2010 04:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Another personal attack, per WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." --AmaryllisGardener 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just like when Davey dismissed me because I'm a "bus fan". And all the other personal attacks he's made against me, that you just don't seem to have noticed. Perhaps "heavy bias" wasn't a strong enough term to describe your interest here? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quick note - I've also notified Charles and Tokyogirl79 of this discussion since I brought there name up here and plus they've also had issues with NFLOE, Cheers, –Davey2010 23:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to be blatant canvassing of editors known to be hostile to Notforlackofeffort. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• With all respect If I mention anyones name anywhere they get told whether its ANI, AIV, UFAA, I personally find it respectful to tell that person I've mentioned them, and plus as they had issues with him I'd rather everyone gets involved and voices there opinion. –Davey2010 00:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) It's standard policy to notify someone whose name has come up on the noticeboards. If Davey2010 had thought of it, he could have pinged them when he mentioned them and it would have amounted to the same thing. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - My strong objection to this editor is the obvious intent to insult, as shown on the talk pages. It's disruptive to the collegial effort needed to work together. They may have a point regarding the operation of this place, but there is a right way, and a hurtful wrong way. Let's show this person the door. Jusdafax 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I'm sorry, but Andrew's comment is absolutely ludicrous and is one of the daftest I've seen in a while ("winning on the NOTHERE front"? Seriously?), to the point where I seriously think they should retract it. BMK's analysis is solid; we have an account who has a 10% mainspace edit rate (give or take), and whose sole activities otherwise seem to be hounding Davey2010 or generally causing a lot of disruption; they've even admitted to having a lack of interest in actually being constructive. It matters not one jot how many articles Notforlackofeffort, Davey2010, nor anyone else have created (if NFLOE had created a thousand single-word articles, would you support them based on that? Sounds like it.) I also strongly doubt Tokyogirl79 has a history of being hostile to anyone, from what I've seen, and I certainly haven't been brought here by anyone's request. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Insults are not ok, but apparently it is acceptable for User talk:Davey2010 to direct foul language at other despite not being asked not to. Does seem a touch hyprocritical that an editor with over 29,000 posts in 4 years has never added an article, yet regularly nominates articles for deletion.

When it was stated that a post I had made to Vauxhall bus station, I asked at Talk:Vauxhall bus station for clarification as the post did not appear in breach. Rather than answer the question and shutting the issue down the editor (and one other who just reversed my posts) just dismissed my query as 'crap', presumably because my post was not in contravention as asserted, but merely different to his/her personal preferences.

Or in other words, dishonestly hiding behind policy that he/she knows doesn't exist. Hardly the conduct of someone who aspires to be an administrator. Astbam (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, how did you come to find this discussion Astbam? I just notice you haven't edited in months. Sam Walton (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, curious, that. The very first edit of User:Notforlackofeffort was an edit on Aug 19, 2014 to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nu-Venture, an article that Davey2010 had nominated for deletion. On Aug 8, 2014 Astbam had edited the Nu-Venture article, and there are some edit-warring warnings at User talk:Astbam from Davey2010 and from other users around July-August 2014. So both Notforlackofeffort and Astbam seem to share an interest in bus-related articles and a grudge against Davey2010. WP:QUACK anyone? Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Quack. SPI anyone? --AmaryllisGardener 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI report, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Astbam. Nsk92 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Update (after the below message). While I was responding to that investigation, I found the smoking gun which proves it's bullshit - Astbam was the person who put the seed into Davey's mind to delete the Nu-Venture article, which I then opposed 10 days later. So, unless any of you think I'm schizophrenic, then my alternate explanation below is definitely the right one. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not reallya smoking gun. Please see WP:BADHAND. BMK (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise, another example of someone on Misplaced Pages telling me to see a link, which turns out not to remotely explain why they linked it. What exactly are you trying to say? What possible reason would I have for pretending to be two people in that scenario? What does the person who wants Nu-Venture deleted have to gain by disrupting the ensuing deletion proposal by saying keep? Indeed, what disruption actually occurred over that issue at all? Other than it being kept, which is apparently what I didn't want? For the sake of understanding, just use plain English in your reply, for Christ's sake. No more bloody links. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water... If you don't understand how BADHAND applies to the situation as alleged, then I have to say that you're most probably not as "extremely intelligent" as you believe yourself to be. I think the rest of us understand the applicability, n'est-ce pas? BMK (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. I think you're just full of it, and just don't really see it. I invite anyone here to explain what BMK apparently thinks is just obvious. For convenience, here's the full text of what is at the end of the BADHAND link - ""Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism.". If anyone here has a clue how that relates to the situation here, where supposedly there's something to gain by one person using two accounts to propose an article for deletion and then get it kept, please tell me, so I might learn why I'm such an idiot for not realising it myself. I'll take silence to mean that BMK was just trying to use the link as a convenient way to insinuate wrong doing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, in words that I hope are short enough for an "extremely intelligent" person like you to follow: the essence of BADHAND is the creation of two identities, one of which is antagonistic to the other, so that the two IDs can operate against each other, causing disruption and (presumably) amusement for the person behind them.

I'm not saying that you are Astbam or that you aren't, I don't know, but I don't think it really matters all that much, as your behavior as NFTLOE has been sufficiently disruptive to justify indef blocking on that basis alone, but your claim of finding a "smoking gun" that proves you are not Astbam just isn't the case, as anyone who has had to deal with good hand/bad hand sockpuppeteers can tell you. Is that clear enough? BMK (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it clears it up only as far as you seem to think people would find that amusing. Which is a revealing if disturbing window into the minds of the defenders and attackers in this giant game you call an encyclopedia. It doesn't explain why you thought that's what BADHAND says and I was just thick for not getting it, since it doesn't and I clearly wasn't. Nor does it explain why you think that scenario applies to these two accounts, since no disruption resulted from their interaction at the AFD. The fact is, me pointing it out really is the smoking gun insofar as proving I am not Astbam, because the claim that I am him rests on the fact we both had the same interests and both disliked the same person. I suppose you might now say that I am a complete genius, and that I only opposed myself in that AFD so I could have plausible deniability when I got to this stage of my dastardly plan where I could unleash the full potential of controlling not only this account but Astbam as well, but I'm sure even you can see how batshit insane that is when compared to the alternate explanation, which is that someone simply put two and two together and made five. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Pay close attention. In scenario A, an editor trying to improve a bus related article, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. In scenario B, an editor trying to stop bus related articles from being deleted, gets the NOTthis/NOTthat/ignore treatment from Davey and Charles, despite trying to have an actual policy based conversation with them in a way where both parties leave satisfied they have been heard and understood. Which is the more likely explanation? That both editors are the same person, or that the way that Davey and Charles attempt to brush off people who know about bus topics is consistently poor, and therefore has the exact same ability to piss off different editors interested in buses? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never created an article because I'd feel disheartened if it were nominated (I at times dislike nominating peoples articles but it's all part of editing here), Plus I've tried article creation and I'll admit I was shit at it, Also Bit strange after not editing since October that you decide your first edit this month is to this?, Also I don't want to be an admin as my temper as well as patience gets the better of me unfortunately.... –Davey2010 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block, (take note I'm somewhat involved in this, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/NIBS (bus company)) NFLOE is constantly showing a battleground attitude, Davey's attitude wasn't great sometimes, but he apologized for his behavior, then NFLOE deleted his comment, for example. --AmaryllisGardener 01:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm glad you brought that up (AmaryllisGardener). Davey had deleted messages from me to him multiple times before that without comment. He then turned up at my talk page to give a classic non-apology apology - "If I have fucked you off in any way then I apologize". He knew full well he had fucked me off, and yet even in that non-apology apology he found time to tell another lie - claiming as he did that if I had just told him where to find information to prove NIBS was notable, he would have happily withdrawn. Well, funnily enough, that's exactly what I had done. Not only did I provide a link to a news report (which he made absolutely no comment about, not even to dismiss it - how collaborative!), I also told him the title of the magazine where, if I am not completely senile, I know for a fact he will find at least one (and very likely many more) articles on the company. Do I remember the precise issue number? No. Would he be able to find it if he actually wanted to? If he was sincere about withdrawing if the information exists, then of course he could. It would only take one phone call or email. But he's not sincere. Instead of commenting on that news report, he found the time to lecture me about how bad it is to comment on the person (while in the very same posts, dismissing everything I say on account I'm a "bus fan" and "want every bus company here saved". The first quote might be true, albeit patronising and borderline insulting (but is irrelevant if we're not allowed to talk about the person), but the second was just another lie. So damn right I ignored his non-apology apology. And I was not at all surprised he has since found time to hypocritically complain about that, while conveniently forgetting he'd done exactly the same to me several times previously, in situations where I actually had good reason to expect a response (because of all the people here claiming this is a collaboration). And yes, everyone please note that AmaryllisGardener is no doubt heavily biased here. Their original delete comment cited the fact the article didn't reference any independent "websites" (when the true notability test is sources, which include print media). Correcting people on basic facts like that when they're seeking to pass judgement on subjects about which they know nothing about, is the sort of 'behaviour' of mine that people are all bent out of shape about - I expose their failures to follow even the most basic rules here. Somehow though, every single time, including here, you people still manage to turn these failures around and blame me for them. I point out a subject will have been covered in print media for common sense reason x, y and z, thinking I'm doing you all a favour by letting you know things you apparently never knew before, and surprise surprise, it's then my fault the article will be deleted because I didn't drop everything I was doing and hunt down all the issue numbers and ISBN numbers. And now, somehow, not creating articles counts against me in the 'not here to help us' argument, even though for the most part I have been contributing by trying to stop articles that shouldn't be deleted from being deleted. This apparently makes me a very bad person, not remotely fit for Misplaced Pages. And who is my main opponent? Why, it's the guy who has apparently never created a single article, and instead spends his time trying to delete things. And he's a good guy. Well, if anyone can figure that one out, they really are smarter than me. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm... no article creations = bad guy? Not hardly. We all have different ways of contributing, and Davey's is AfD. Perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you work with GAs, you work with creating articles, you copyedit, or work at AfD, all of those areas improve Misplaced Pages. :) About my "heavy bias", I don't know why you had to make it clear again, I just said I was involved earlier, but I can still discuss this here. --AmaryllisGardener 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block The idea that any editor "must" create articles before they can avoid harassment and/or stalking is ludicrous. BMK's analysis is spot on. Also, indef is not infinite. The WP:STANDARDOFFER is always available to anyone who wants to edit productively. MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block: per not here. Vrac (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Jusdafax and others. We are far too patient with disruptive editors who, in net, contribute very little to the project. Also, someone who cannot (or will not) comment succinctly, and ignores suggestion to do so, has no business working on an encyclopedia. - MrX 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  You can't handle the truth! Succinct enough for you? I have no business working here, that's for sure. But boy have I been begged to create articles for Misplaced Pages, based on my expert knowledge. At the same time as being told I'm a worthless piece of shit by the people who find that knowledge inconvenient when it contradicts their claims that this or that article fails NOTthis or NOTthat or GNG. It's a surreal experience, I'll say that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block at this time: We need to get better at editor retention; suggest mentoring and WP:AGF before totally and completely lowering the boom. If the editor is here for the reasons other believe (e.g., WP:NOTHERE, that will become obvious over time. If the editor has a mentor and someone watching his edits, maybe what's bad now could become better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  A nice sentiment, but it rather misses the point. We need to get better about retaining editors who improve the encyclopedia. We don't need to retain the vandals, the trolls, the free-riders, and the other disruptive editors who do so much to make editing here problematic. NFLOE makes it quite clear in his bloated comments that they have no intention to change anything, that what they are doing is exactly what they want to do. Given this, showing them the door is the answer, not wasting time trying to change their character. If and when they grow up a bit and decide they want to contribute productively, they can ask to be unblocked and given another chance, BMK (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it misses your point and the point of the other circling sharks, but I don't see any harm in a mentor at this time. Of course, if the SPI comes back positive for violating policy, that will likely be the final nail in this individual's proverbial coffin. Personally, I think a little more actual AGF rather than just talking about it would be a nice thing to see. Then again, AN/I isn't typically the place for seeing that policy actually being followed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you've also missed the essence of AGF as well. It's not something that you hold on to come hell or high water, it's something that you start with when an issue is first raised, and there's little or no evidence that anything wrong is actually going on. Once there's been sufficient evidence presented, it's totally wrong to ignore it on the basis of "AGF". BMK (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And where, may I ask, is your AGF concerning the people expressing negative opinions about NFTLOE's behavior? You call us "sharks", implying what, that our comments are motivated by uncontrolled base instincts and not by human reasoning? That we're hungry animals who will attack anything in the water that's bleeding and defenseless? That's hardly either fair or reasonable, is it? BMK (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Having been told his editing is problematic, the user in question is continuing to make personal attacks on this very page . Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. -- Calidum 04:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Block: I find Davey2010 an excellent example of the kind of heavily entrenched editor who chases away new editors through finely tuned incivility. He seems to have a serious double standard problem. It's not surprising that other editors get so frustrated with him that they engage in personal attacks. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Chases away" would be a valid description only if Davey2010 was the only person supporting a block. And I'd rather have finely-tuned incivility toward trolls than blatant incivility and disruption from trolls. St★lwart 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block We need more collaborative editors who make improving the encyclopedia their top priority at all times. We do not need tendentious, combative, repetitive editors who specialize in useless walls of text and feuding with their enemies. This editor is clearly part of the second group. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• On the issue of me supposedly contributing little to Misplaced Pages by way of new articles - is there a single one of my critics here who is even able to make an educated guess how long it would take to do something like write a half-decent Misplaced Pages article on the 1990s bus company London Northern? Which is just one glaring example of the many missing articles on Misplaced Pages in this field. If anyone here wants to put their money where their mouth is and claim they could do this in the same time it's taken me to comment in a few AFDs and "stalk" Davey (who it turns out by his own admission he couldn't write it at all, even though this is exactly the sort of article he's attempting to pass judgement on based on what he little he knows about what books and magazines are out there), then I will personally send them the money to buy the books and magazines required to write it. On one condition - if you fail to complete it, or if you do but it still has obvious holes in it (because you were too lazy or incompetent to do a thorough literature review, which someone who knows absolutely nothing about buses would have to do), then you send me back 10 times the money I sent you. Any takers? Thought not. Anyway, sorry to distract you, now you can back to your lectures about what I haven't done for Misplaced Pages, and how much other people like Charles and Davey really have..... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "new article" thing you keep coming back to is a red herring. Many editors never create a single new article in their editing careers, and yet they contribute significantly to the improvement of the encyclopedia by editing articles (you're such a "extremely intelligent" person who who knows "a hell of a lot about buses and bus transport", you should be able to improve some of the articles about those subjects), by helping in categorization, by working with templates and in various other ways, none of which you choose to do. Instead you're doing what we see here, on your talk page, and on the talk pages of other editors. If you are really "extremely intelligent", you're certainly not demonstrating it here, nor is your extensive knowledge about buses anywhere on display. So, why should we allow you to stay around? Editing here isn't your right, it's a privilege that the community can take away when it sees fit to do so, and if you are interested in maintaining that privilege, you had better start to show it damn quick. BMK (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • OK then, please explain where/when/why Davey was granted the privilege to make claims such as this idea he knows more about buses than I do, or that he is a "bus enthusiast"? Since he said those things, I await your personal report on the inspection of his own contributions. Is he doing all the things for Misplaced Pages that you would like to see such an expert perform? Since he isn't creating articles, does what he does make up for that with what else he's doing, in your mind? Or is he in reality often doing what I have observed in this area, and deleting information and indeed whole articles for reasons which barely stand up to scrutiny. Does your interest here stretch to examining what he has done, or are you solely focused on me? Given your passionate belief that editing here is a privilege not a right, would you perhaps like to comment on whether or not someone who removes information from an article on the grounds "it's in the source anyway", is abusing that privilege or not? What about someone who is playing fast and loose with the phrases like "there's literally no sources", or with the definition of a directory or indiscriminate information or a timetable any of the other NOTs he invokes but which never seem to translate into a proper, English language, justification for his actions, unless you take one particular interpretation based on some pretty shaky assumptions, and then just ignore everything else that contradicts it (or more accurately, anyone else). My extensive knowledge is on display in all the places I've been commenting at, including on people's talk pages. I didn't challenge Davey to write the London Northern article for a laugh or to troll or harass, I did it to expose the fact that even though he claims to know more about buses than me, this was quite clearly a total lie (I didn't even know at that time that he hadn't yet created a single article on Misplaced Pages). My intelligence is on display when I spot people abusing the rules to get outcomes they personally want due to their various likes/dislikes, rather than to get Misplaced Pages articles as close as is humanly possible to being a complete summary of all available information in reliable independent sources, whether they be online or offline. I have the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to do that for this topic, if I put my mind and about a million man hours into it, which I think scares the shit out of you, for pretty obvious reasons. Hence your multiple attacks on me, which long ago ceased to be based on anything I've actually done, or so it seems to me anyway. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not reading another one of your WP:TLDR comments until you write them in a way that a human being can read them. If I see something that's succinct and to the point, using paragraph breaks and less than 1K bytes, I'll try to read it and respond, but if you're just going to piss all over the many editors telling you that you're too verbose, I'm not bothering. BMK (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
        • And yet you'd gladly have me spend all my time to write a thousand times more words to create articles which you can't even begin to appreciate are even missing, let alone write yourself, just to prove my worth to you, and all for free. It's pretty obvious who's being pissed on and whose being shat on in this particular scenario. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Ah, ah, ah! Remember, "creating articles" is your red herring, we're talking about improving articles.

            In any case you clearly have not an iota of a wink of a jot of a conception of the difference between writing to improve the encyclopedia and the kind of verbal diarrhea you've been letting loose in Misplaced Pages space and on user talk pages, which doesn't improve the encyclopedia in any way shape or form and just adds unnecessary bulk. Yet another reason to indef block you, I'm afraid. (And, sorry, we never pay for anything, whether it's useful editing or random spew. BMK (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

            • I'm afraid I do. It's you who clearly doesn't appreciate the benefit to Misplaced Pages of people like me, subject experts, working to prevent the needless loss of information in a topic area, information which you would surely see was perfectly valid and acceptable if you only stopped to pass a critical eye and a healthy dose of common sense to the reasons people like Davey are using to delete it. You must have a screw loose not to be able to realise that if you can't repair the holes being left by the cowboys faster than you can build new walls using qualified builders, your precious encyclopedia is doomed. I mean seriously, do I have to ask for a third time what you, the almighty protector of Misplaced Pages, thinks of someone removing information from an article on the grounds it's in the source anyway? I mean hello.....I've just given you a slam dunk example of someone doing something that nobody here can deny is just monumentally stupid, yet it's being greeted by you, the person who holds improvement of Misplaced Pages as the One True Ring, with total and utter silence. Which is exactly what happened when they did it to the article. It only got fixed because I was following that editor and saw him do it, and exercised my right, or privilege, or whatever the fuck you want to call it, to fix what he had broken. You don't want me to follow that guy? You wan't to believe his crocodile tears and buy into his claims of stalking or harassment, just because I applied a little bit of common sense, logic, and yes, your own goddamn rules to what he's doing, and to all those AFDs, then fine. It's your project to fuck up I guess, since I was apparently never part of it anyway. I'll take my fancy book learning and my educashun and improve someone else's encyclopedia. Maybe I'll contribute to one of the printed works which call themselves encyclopedias of trams, trolleybuses or buses, the things that real Misplaced Pages people like Dave the so called bus enthusiast have never even heard of! Square that circle if you can. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Of the many articles you've created here, which would you say are your top 5 or 10 best efforts? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Out of the thousands of people you must have similarly tried to provoke with such obvious attempts at trolling, which do you think were the top 10 comebacks? Pick any one off that list and substitute it here by way of reply. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • I don't think I've ever asked that question before, but I've never talked to a subject expert before (I'm guessing your expertise is in profane and abusive language). So your comment tops the list, by default. And is your comment a hint that you have not actually created any articles here? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • It was a hint that I'm in no mood to entertain any more obvious trolls today. It's a shame you didn't take it, as now I have to be so crass as to directly tell you to go and get your kicks elsewhere. No soup for you today. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • Are you saying you have created articles here? Under which user ID(s)? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • All of them. All your article are belong to us. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBan between User:Notforlackofeffort and User:Davey2010 If that is why you think he is here, just IBAN him and if he violates it, it is an easy block. --Obsidi (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support block, it seems quite clear from the text above that User:Notforlackofeffort is mainly here to argue and pick fights with others. The long, rambling, pseudo-intellectual essays provided as responses here are as clear an illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect as one could ask for. Perhaps unblock if they agree to cease all personal attacks and a mentor is appointed to keep them on the straight and narrow, although looking at their contributions, where one has to comb finely to find anything unambiguously positive, I'm not struck by a sense of optimism. Lankiveil 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

  I agree. I have clearly miscalculated the capacity of other people here to tell the difference between legitimately following a user because they're breaking the rules, and stalking them for the purposes of harassment. I also completely underestimated the capacity of people here to recognise the difference between calling someone an asshole, and criticising people for failings to follow Misplaced Pages policy for reasons which stem solely from their own personal situation, such as a lack of expertise. I also simply underestimated the capacity for people here to just be completely biased toward existing users and hostile to new ones. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block. Not one ounce of sincerity detectable in that user. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Ah, see, now, I knew there would be a price to be paid for not entertaining you. Sorry I didn't bite, but if that makes me insincere, I guess I'll just have to live with that. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Your ID and any socks being sent to the wiki-phantom zone will be sufficient entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  See, I had you pegged from the start. Maybe you need to get some real entertainment in your life, especially now that the Ministry for the Bleeding Obvious has just reported and, surprise surprise, it turns out I'm not Astbam. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not supposed to be Misplaced Pages's version of the Colosseum where we engage in the public spectacle of thumbs-up, thumbs-down block this editor! (e.g. WP:PITCHFORKS). The first thing I notice is this thread was opened without any discussion by the OP on NFLOE's talk page . NE Ent 11:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I was already aware of his intentions. I had known what he was planning after I intercepted his 'secret' communication he was hoping to conduct on Davey's talk page. It's what we like to call 'good skills' at stalker school. And I suppose if we're being generous, Kinu telling me "I have nothing to say here. Have a good day" when I confronted him, sort of counts as discussion, right? It's certainly more discussion I've had with a lot of people here during that process they like to call collaboration anyway. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent: I felt that the back-and-forth with this editor at the indicated AfDs (that went nowhere) counted as attempts at communication. That being said, other editors have also attempted to engage him and encourage him to drop the stick, but these attempts were just as fruitless. Given the total lack of constructive conversation from the other side, it seemed more reasonable to get other sets of eyes about this editor's repeated behavior and to have the community consider what "action" could be taken... that being a broad term and not necessarily referring to a block (interaction ban? mentorship? other options?).

Notforlackofeffort: there was nothing "secret" about my communication with Davey2010; it's out there for all to see, as is everything else on this site. I avoided pinging you because I didn't want you to dig your own hole deeper with yet another wall of text, yet you chose to do that on my talk page. Honestly, I actually figured you would find it anyway, but your persistent belief that this was something that you feel you shouldn't have seen lends credence to the suspicion that you are stalking him. --Kinu /_c 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Key word being back-and-forth Discussing NFLOE on the Afd page was just as wrong as his discussing Davey2010. Often showing someone how we want them to interact is more effective than telling them. NE Ent 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. I don't think that voting here on an indefinite block in this case is truly warranted. He will likely be indeffed anyway, but I don't honestly believe that it is the correct response unless serious evidence warranting an indef is discovered/put forth. Doc talk 13:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I just realised, the guy who started this whole thing buggered off shortly after it started, never to be seen again. And the same goes for the guy who started the sock-puppet investigation too. And Davey is on a "wikibreak" too, presumably to recover from all the stress I've caused him. Is that a Misplaced Pages thing? Drop people in the snake pit, and run away, laughing? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, you know, they're volunteers here and have lives outside of Misplaced Pages? Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These kinds of statements really don't help you. Generally, the simplest explanation is correct: it's the holidays.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I am not familiar with the original dispute and don't plan to read it. However, User:Notforlackofeffort, you are in a hole and are continuing to dig. Many of your comments are too long, difficult to read, and some of them that are easy to read are just snarky and hostile. If you really think that Misplaced Pages is such a horrible place, you don't have to stay here. If you want to be a Wikipedian, be concise and civil. Please stop digging a hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We have an article about that. --Kinu /_c 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Leaning to support as long as this editor appears to have not taken the point that there is something wrong in his behaviour, nor he expressed any intention to change this attitude. Cavarrone 20:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dragging someone to ANI so a bunch of folks can poke at them generally isn't a very effective means to that end. NE Ent 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get over it, Ent, the guy's an obvious troll and a free-rider, he's not here to improve the encyclopedia, he's been dead clear about that, and your whining about piddling shit isn't going to help him, just annoy the rest of us. We're well past the stage where this can collapse back onto his talk page. BMK (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support block - my efforts to counsel the editor at User talk:Notforlackofeffort#Challenge were met with a torrent of abuse, as it appears was everyone else. Unfortunately some people are just not cut out to be wiki editors.

As someone who has edited bus articles extensively and has a reasonably good knowledge of the subject matter, although I wouldn't be as egotistical to describe myself as extremely intelligent, from an online perspective there is not much to be added to justify a stand alone London Northern article than already given at MTL (transport company)#MTL London. I am sure there are printed sources, but as the editor cannot/will not be forthcoming with these which he asserts exist, then per branch policy a stand alone article cannot be justified. Busgb (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sectarian Agenda WikiStalking

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

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking by proposing two articles that I created for deletion and one article from 2007 that edited also for deletion. , and . He has also tried to declare me as vandal but it failed .I simply removed the redirect and restored the page Islam in Kerala . Then FreeatlastChitchat cyberstalking me edit the page and removed the previous editors historical information

from the page and added his sectarian Ahmadiyya info to the page. When he reverted his page and restored the information that he has deleted he called that vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat has made the major changes in that article while I have restored the article and wikified few words. he has been involved revert edit war in that page.I would like a resolution of this dispute. Thanks. Nestwiki (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As I do not engage in or condone edit wars. My stance is as follows.

• The articles which I tagged for deletion DID require deletion. you can view my Talk page to see that.

At least one other user was of the same view as is evident from his message on my talk page.

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, I agree with your reason to propose deletion of Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services, if you were to bring it up with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, I would support the article's deletion. Also, with Papri chaat, I would recommend proposing a Merge with Chaat at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Hope this helps, Happy editing! Pjposullivan (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead and propose all my newly created articles for deletion especially Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can see from the history of edits by Nestwiki that he ALWAYS tries to vandalise/edit ahmadiyya related articles. He was warned once before by another user but his agenda continues. If you look at his recent contributions you will see that he has sustained history of disrupting ahmadiyya pages, hence his agenda is against Ahmadiyyah.
• If you look at the pages which have both me and him as the editor you will see that he has reverted me multiple times without any explanation. This was his "getting back at me" for tagging his pages for deletion. Which I did in good faith. This is borderline ridiculous.
• He mentions the Page about Kerala Muslism. I edited the page to include the fact that the Kerala Court has given its decision that Ahmadis are muslims. This is a major major event in the history of Islam in Kerala. Therefore I added it to the section.

Nestwiki then deleted this and wrote in the edit summary (WIKIFY). How this blatant POV deletion comes under wikify, only he can tell.

I also removed the unsourced parts of the section which were POV. a simple example is my removal of the sentence that all important mosques have a madrassa attached for religious education. This is unconfirmed by any reliable source and cannot be sustained. Which mosque will you consider "important"? the Sunni mosque or the Shia mosque?

Seeing this I removed this.

I also removed blatant POV sentences like "Below them are Arabs, said to derive from Arab inter-marriages with Indian women". Below in what may I ask? If muslims are made of different sects , with each sect a completely different hierarchy, then how can this be true?

I have explained the reasons for my edits and the reaction of this user. I will be looking forward to hearing from an admin on this issue , thank you.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a quick observation here from an admin, WP:AIV should never be used to intercede in what looks like a straightforward content dispute. The way that WP:Proposed deletion works means that anyone may tag and article and anyone may remove that tag, however it should not be used for cases that are likely to be controversial. IF you really think an article needs to go, try WP:AFD, where it will get a review from the community who will hopefully be impartial. I don't see anything in either edit history that even remotely justifies the spite that you two seem to have for each other, I'd suggest the best solution would be for both you to go to lengths to avoid crossing paths with the other, for now. Lankiveil 08:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

FreeatlastChitchat is a sectarian contributor whose contribution is limited to adding Ahmadiyya agenda to all Islam related page. Now has added Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking to his portfolio. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am dealing with the issues relating to Islam in Kerala at the article itself. Whatever the problem there may be, it is clearly a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. Nestwiki (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to get this resolved so I can finally be rid of this guy. He has now started to copy/paste the same message on numerous talk pages.

The text reads "FreeatlastChitchat a serial sectarian contributor now has added Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking to his portfolio."

He has plastered it at these places, I have no idea why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nestwiki#December_2014

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wanishahrukh#Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TopGun#Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pakistan_Institute_for_Parliamentary_Services#Deletions_attempts https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Grave_worshiping#Unreliable_source

Usually this kind of hate is water off my back but I don't like it when some one starts to spread hate around.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While I do not condone the wording of the messages left to the few random people above (including me), I think the prod of the PIPS article was hasty and atleast of equal disruption. This is probably a content dispute so it's best that you two stop interacting with each other and stop opening each other's contributions history unless you want to escalate it further into a behavioural issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with --lTopGunl (talk). I would appreciate it that I am not mentioned in random hate messages. If the admins just enforce that he does not link me in the messages then I will appreciate it. He can just write my name instead of using the link. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Still going on. Everytime he mentions me on some random page and tries to spread hate I itch to pay him back in the same but that will most likely lead to warring. WHY cannot he be cautioned by the admins? And just why in the name of all that is sweet and sour does he have to come at me? Cuz I tagged a couple of his pages for deletion? big meh. Pages get tagged all the damn time. They lacked sources so I tagged them. Why is he so possessive of the goddamn pages? Am I supposed to apologize to the creator everytime I edit/tag a page? Can someone PLEASE explain why he has such hate? I will be looking forward to cessation of this hate mongering. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I tested how committed User:Nestwiki is to this foolishness by using a RPA template on just one of his copy paste personal attacks under the provisions of WP:NPA. He has restored the offensive material 3 times now. Can someone sanction please?

SqueakBox and porn again

I reverted SqueakBox's blanking of all the names of people involved in the video anthology Dirty Diaries. This included the name of producer Mia Enberg who is mentioned in several of the dozen or so references in the article. The article has a dozen or so references and none of the participants are listed as porn actors, but listed as directors (though some of them are performers as well). Two of them fairly notable, especially Ester Martin Bergsmark and to some extent Johanna Rytel. Besides obviously being listed by name in the actual films, there's confirmation of this at the film database of the Swedish Film Institute. All of these references were present in the article at the time of the blanking.

I posted a notice at SqueakBox's talkpage, but was then alerted to the fact that the user has been involved in controversial porn-related editing before and found this discussion. SqueakBox's editing is extremely heavy-handed and in this case, it's clear that there hasn't been even a minimal attempt to check existing references. This type of sloppiness is inexcusable. I'm not in the least interested in getting dragged into SqueakBox's contentious BLP drama on my own, so I'm posting here as a preventive measure.

Peter 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that similarly absurd edits have been made in articles about mainstream porn films. The level of sheer bloodymindedness is aptly illustrated by the removal of the names of both Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks from the article on the film Briana Loves Jenna.

This has nothing to do with upholding the spirit of WP:BLP. Please consider a warning or topic ban unless this behavior stops.

Peter 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the BLP vio that admins should be investigating. Removing unsourced BLP violations is not behaviour that needs to concern admins. Peter, you ned to explain why removing BLP violations "is absurd" and why removing them should be of interest to admins. I have not yet been censured for removing BLP violations, I dont believe I will be either as I am simply enforcing our most important policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard anything quite so absurd in my life. Let me get this right - you removed the names of Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks - both well-known pornographic actresses, the former one of the most famous in the world, from an article about a movie called "Briana loves Jenna", starring both of them (strangely enough), because you claimed there wasn't a reliable source saying they were in it? Despite the fact there are reliable sources in it? I have reverted you (and I am the third editor to do so - you are at 3RR). Your stance on unsourced lists and articles I could totally stand behind - but that example is simply disruptive. Really, stop now. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox How's that an BLP ? Sure doesn't look like one to me. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, The wording in WP:BLPSOURCES is that material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" is fair game for removal. No disagreement there. This is not the case in either Dirty Diaries or Briana Loves Jenna. The sources are properly given, if not repeated for every single time the name is mentioned. If this is a requirement, I'd like to know where this is stated, either in practice or consensus discussions. It's also unclear why a film itself, a publicly available document, would not be enough to establish the names of the actors or directors starring in it.

Your actions in Briana Loves Jenna speak for themselves. You are single-handedly manufacturing the contentiousness stipulated in WP:BLP, which is merely disruptive.

In Dirty Diaries, Engberg's name is mentioned in something like half the sources. Marit Östberg is even the author of one of one of those sources, and it's published in Aftonbladet, the largest newspaper in Sweden. Johanna Rytel is explicitly mentioned in one of the reviews, also in an established regional newspaper. And so forth. Under "External links", there's a link to the film data base of the Swedish Film Institute that lists all of those mentioned in the article. Again, as if the film itself wasn't enough. You obviously did not bother to look up a single one of those. In fact, you don't seem to have read anything beyond the lead and the infobox. I know that because you were so quick to blank names that you left the list of the individual films intact with those same names. You don't seem to even be thinking your contributions through. Fighting BLP violations does not mean you can leave any semblance of competence behind.

Peter 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, this isn't ANI:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again, is it? That mess created A LOT of work for a great many Editors with little perceptible improvement to the average Reader IMO when all was said and done. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not limited to just the above articles

Unfortunately this is more widespread. User Guy1890 posted this list of articles on the Porn Project Talk page that SqueakBox has been rather drastically editing. What makes this especially concerning is the fact that the Notability of porn actor articles is tied directly to wins of these awards.

• 27th AVN Awards
• 28th AVN Awards
• 29th AVN Awards
• 30th AVN Awards
• 31st AVN Awards

I guess maybe this is the incident with the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again.Damnit SqueakBox, why start this up again without ANY communication first?? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for SqueakBox on all Porn articles (Votes)

• I suggest that SqueakBox be Topic banned from such articles, as the mass removal of actor/actress names that are easy to verifiable is purely disruptive. OhNoitsJamie 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. The edits to Briana Loves Jenna (including edit warring) and Dirty Diaries are the worst in my view, but these are essentially the same thing even if the actors aren't as obviously notable as Jameson and Banks. The havoc wreaked on the AVN Awards articles is also nearly meaningless, especially removal of the names of people like James Deen or Skin Diamond.

Peter 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I've seen enough disruption. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose BLP patrol is important and a lynching because you don't agree with it would have a chilling effect. Spartaz 11:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I kept an eye on this last time. While good faith could of been used last time, the continued removal of what appears to be well sourced content under BLP is just too much for me. Reluctant support for a topic ban from all porn-related articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and Spartaz how about redacting the "lynching" part, that's very much an N.P.A. Bear in mind SqueakBox still hasn't answered how his removal qualifies as a BLP, he's just continued claim of BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz, speaking of bearing in mind, SqeuakBox seems to be extending the idea that just about anything related to non-normative sexuality is contentious and apt for immediate blanking. Like mentioning that Tom Goss has a song about bears called "Bears" in the article about bears (without an inline citation, God forbid). A statement about named actors in Glee made bear-related jokes was blanked in the same edit.

He also removed the name of Tori Black from the infobox in Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy, but kept the image of a topless Tori Black on the cover image and left her name in three other places further down in the article. Same thing with Alexis Texas in Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman.

Peter 18:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo, Squeak is not alone in this belief, so please do not judge him too harshly or solely on this. This is a site wide problem that should be addressed by WikiProject Countering systemic bias and treated as such. Anything dealing with politics, religion, or human sexuality seems to bring out the worst in many Editors. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, those covers are directly from the pornographic film itself. It seems with your comment that you're taking somewhat of an issue with the cover itself, when it's just a pornographic film. We're not going to use some other cover to illustrate the film itself. But uh, if I'm seeing it wrong--that SqueakBox is removing names where seriously, their name is in the article of the piece, then yes, that's outrageous and he needs to lay off. I'm a bit surprised however when this came up circa 2 months ago, there was -a lot- more people willing to topic ban him, but it wasn't actioned. Seems like he pricked a few wrong nerves or took it too far. Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I have no objections to the cover as such. I just noted the obvious contradiction between zapping someone's name but choosing to keep a topless image of the same person. The disconnect is striking. It's not just inappropriate editing, it's extremely bad BLP patrolling. Peter 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, you have a point. I've said my piece.

Peter 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support In prior occasions of this issue I felt this was not an issue. But this is getting out of hand. If there are BLP problems they can be handled by someone else as this user is not handling it logically. Chillum 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose or Support temporary TBan simply for the reason that I know from the previous incident that SqueakBox is well intentioned. But starting this up again on such a widespread basis and going after the core articles (the awards) of the project without any prior communication is just plain insulting to every Editor that productively edits these articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• BLP enforcement is vitally important, but requires a measure of common sense. This is taking things well beyond the point of absurdity. Perhaps SqueakBox will agree to voluntarily drop the stick and engage on talk pages. If not, then I don't see any other option than a topic ban. Even if he is acting in good faith, good faith is not (in itself) sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. SqueakBox has demonstrated in their reply here and in their edit summaries that they consider any involvement in porn to be a bad thing bringing the BLP provisions against defamation into play. This makes them unable to edit porn articles neutrally, and there was apparently extensive support for a topic ban when this came up previously. The editor still has this problem, and is damaging articles as a result. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit porn articles but it is very unreasonable to suggest it is a BLP violation to list an actress as being in a movie that contains her name in the title and naked body on the cover. Tyler Perry's House of Payne does not have a cite in the infobox for Tyler Perry's involvement either. Why is this taking so long to ban him from Porn, an area he claims to know little about anyway. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as IIRC I did the first time around. ansh666 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I am not active on this subject area, and I'm pretty heavy-handed when it comes to BLPs myself; but there is literally no condoning this sort of behaviour. WP:CIR, and I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Removing names of the main actors in a self-titled film, regardless of the subject matter, is bonkers. So is removing names and leaving in the pictures. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• If I remember correctly, I opposed sanctions last time this came up, but this is rapidly turning into a competence issue. The edits do seem well-intentioned, but if SqueakBox is unwilling to bring his views into line with mainstream BLP interpretation, it looks like a topic ban might be necessary to prevent further disruption. It would perhaps allay my fears of further disruption if SqueakBox acknowledged the consensus in this thread. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on pornography-related topics. While enforcing the BLP policy is important, Squeakbox seems to not understand that their extreme view of the BLP policy is not supported by the majority of the community. Canuck 11:58, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I also support our BLP policy, but it is not a "free pass" for editing against clear consensus that no plausible BLP issue exists. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per Chillum, Cullen328, and others, while there may well be a BLP issue here, this particular user seems ill-suited to the task, causing more disruption than benefit. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic-ban from porn (as alternative to DE/TE block) as violation of BLP policy by Squeak, for long-term refusal to accept cites and reliable sources as meeting verifiability burden for biographical claims. WP:V is how WP works; removing cited and otherwise-obviously verifiably correct info as being unsupported is not how WP works. CIR-fail trumps AGF. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are problems with the way this user handles these issues, but there are also significant BLP issues that need to be addressed here, and topic bans even for overzealous BLP enforcement may have a chilling effect on good faith attempts to enforce the policy. Is there any reason this user's disruption can't be handled with a few ref tags? Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no. This editor is wholesale deleting obvious material like the actress's name in self titled films. They claim BLP reasons, but clearly nothing to do with BLP. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced edits on the Nagorno-Karabakh article

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

User Zimmarod is both constantly removing my sourced additions on the Nagorno-Karabakh article despite that they're completely sourced with reliable sources. He/she is using arguments such as "rv anon; dubious sources" to disregard entire large edits, or, now even more interestingly putting in his edit description "Rv per WP:BATTLEGROUND, in reference to "This is insane" remark"., because I told that removing entire sourced additions easily like that, is insane. He/she is obviously reverting and acting here with an agenda per WP:JDL, as it's quite a politically active topic. He also switches between his presumably two accounts (Zimmarod and Hablabar) who edit on the exact same articles, write the exact same edit summaries ], ], and have the exact same usage of language.]]

You can't just disregard sourced edits like that I think. Especially if you happen to use two accounts to hide behind this. I brought it here to have this problem solved asap instead of turning it into an edit war. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The interaction analyzer is pretty clear something is going on. The interaction timing goes back over a year for editors who intersect like this and it extends to Georgian scripts and more importantly the talk page which shows both editors interacting and not using edit summaries at all.. Though Roses&guns also appears connected. The only question is meatpuppetry or socking? All editors with 500 or less being involved and supporting each other in a very unusual way over such a strange addition in the previous case.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Today I received a report that my name was mentioned. I would run a full sock search for 94.210.203.230 among the recently banned authors or those with a record of sanctions who were active on that page. Something indeed is going on and we need to figure out who is 94.210.203.230 and why she/he displays POV demeanor. All kinds of "info" is often "sourced" from unreliable and dubious sources and that "info" should be removed. You should go and explain why you think your "info" is worth keeping. Hablabar (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As an uninvolved non-Admin editor I've looked into the disputed additions and deletions on Nagorno-Karabakh, including the sourcing. In my estimation 94.210.203.230 work is well sourced and good additions while Zimmarod and Hablabar are reverting without reasonable cause = edit warring. A minor issue against 94.210.203.230 is the use of Mesrob Mashtots over Mesrop Mashtots with Mesrop being the preferred English spelling (though I suspect that the b is used in some other languages including Spanish.) Legacypac (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is just ridiculous. Not only the fact that he/she constantly removes my good and well sourced additions without any reasonable cause, but also that he/she hides under presumably two accounts in order to continue with his/her "this is my neighborhood and only I own it" activities. Both these facts already are clearly violating numerous Wiki policies. Anyhow, I hope this can be fixed asap and I can restore my well made, and well sourced additions to the article. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

94.210.203.230 has asked me to resolve this situation lest it go stale, but as I noted at my talk page, I don't have time today, so I'm just moving this section to the bottom so that it gets someone else's attention more readily. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Observation and Suggestion

This appears to be an edit-war over Georgian scripts. Georgia (country) is in the Caucasus, which is the boundary between Europe and Asia as traditionally defined. Therefore parts of Georgia are in Eastern Europe, as traditionally defined, and this edit-war is subject to WP:ARBEE. Take this to arbitration enforcement to get the SPAs and disruptive editors topic-banned. If they are sock-puppets, report them at WP:SPI. (Aspersions or unsupported claims of sock-puppetry are personal attacks.) Stop wasting the time of "the community" when there is a streamlined forum for dealing with this edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up here is not because that edit war that happened some time ago, (I haven't checked his other violations as of yet in depth) but the fact that he keeps removing my well sourced/valid edits without a single normal reason. I will make an SPI later for the other issues, but the main reason I brought it up here is for the reason I just mention now again; aka the extremely annoying and disruptive removing of my well sourced additions to the Nagorno-Karabakh article without any reason..... - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on RfA by this IP

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

Can somebody please delete 2600:1008:b009:6d32:d665:f9a5:1706:1eca's personal attacks against rcsprinter123 and his request for adminship? Link to revisions and much more (check the revision history): Sincerely, StormContent 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You man you want the revisions deleted? Calling somebody an "asshole", while hardly helpful, does not come close to meeting the the criteria (that page also explicitly says that RevDel is not to be used for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct). Randykitty blocked the IP, so I don't see that there's anything much left to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The transparency is preferred here. Didn't some president use that word once? -- zzuuzz 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The revisions deleted? Perhaps it couldn't hurt to just review the revs first? This IP repeated the attacks many times it didn't just stalk the nominee but maybe an entire group of judges before the IP's block kicked into effect (just thinking). Who ever thought doing something like that? Besides, It's more like an harsh insult. StormContent 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody likes being called an asshole, but it's hardly "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading". Most admins get called worse than that on a daily basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

...but incompetent, immature, and a "hat collector"? These make everything else unfair for the RfA, and to give empathy, I feel the candidate's pain. StormContent 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Look more closely at the history. That particular piece of bile came from an established editor, though I've also removed that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur again. Someone once described looking at changes on Misplaced Pages as like staring into the open end of a raw sewage pipe. Happy editing. -- zzuuzz 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(strong oppose) says the edit summary, but on Cloudchased's talk page rcsprinter123 is interested why the user willing to use words like the 3 above degrading. Does this mean the word "asshole" is degrading too? StormContent 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Can this issue be marked resolved now? To me I guess the purpose of this ANI entry is to remove any leftover personal attack or review the attack revisions by the IP... we still have that criticism but I think the worst is over? Reply with no if not. StormContent 23:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation account

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

Just after I edited Truck driving schools in the United States and removed lots of non-notable entries, @Squinge1: account was created and continued to edit the article - looks like someone trying to impersonate me. Squinge (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. -- zzuuzz 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks :-) Squinge (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Spotlesssunshine acting disruptive to consensus on Talk:Elite: Dangerous

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elite:_Dangerous#Refund_Quest - Section in question for reference.

Argument has moved from factual nature of article and article's validity as to whether the publication is a valid WP:RS (The Register is a long standing internet publication in the tech sector and is considered to be a fairly reliable second tier source of news in the profession), when the argument failed on that front the user then moved to have the article reframed as part of a larger section concerning social media and it's effect on Frontier's refund policy (this is extremely debatable because there's not yet any real citable sources that suggest such a thing has occurred), and finally when that element didn't stick the user then decided to argue the same route that got HyperspaceCloud temp banned by generating speculative conspiracy theories based on "opposition research" via some very tenuous links through reddit (see infringing WP:DOX and WP:FAITH).

Rather than just concede the matter and move on to more constructive and useful ground, the user seems hell bent on forcing through their specific vision and changes regardless of disruption or damage to consensus, has been caught making unilateral changes to the page (and later apologised) and in general has not been constructive in the sense of providing meaningful and useful dialog. Requesting a time-out for this user so we can focus on getting consensus re-established and get back to constructing the page in good order.LostPackets (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is not beyond the rules for me to post my own perspective here?

There is a reference in the Elite Dangerous Misplaced Pages page that refers to a singular incidence of a refund requester creating a game in parallel to the larger issue of removal of offline mode. The game itself does not reference Frontier or Elite Dangerous at all and the only correlation able to be drawn is from an opinion based hearsay article posted on The Register. There is no factual representation at all. Any attempt to highlight this fact is met with accusations of ill faith. For the record I am not HyperspaceCloud and will more than happily submit to any required requests for proof.

Accepted I made a couple of unilateral edits that I have categorically apologized for and assured the other editors that I would not do so again. As part of this I have been subject to two counts of direct abuse from external users editing useing anonymous IP only accounts. With regards to being constructive, I have made several suggestions for increasing accuracy and content all of which have been directly quashed by LostPackets for unknown reasons beyond 'lets wait to see what happens'. My concern with the specific point of contention is the following:

1) the evidence provided to back up the representation of 'facts' is hearsay 2) Any attempt at contextualising and more clearly categorising is quashed often by citing accusations of ill faith 3) Any attempt at adding additional information to the article is challenged so moving beyond the issue is difficult without outright conceding the point (accepting what is not demonstrably factual as fact). It has also been met with 'I'm just not going to talk about it as it's already been agreed upon' despite new evidence being presented.

There is adequate evidence presented to at the very least raise the question as to whether the reference lends anything to the article and as to whether it is actually valid as factual or situationally accurate. This discussion is solely between myself and LostPackets and I have requested other editors weigh in but they have not been forthcoming. Addition input from Administration would be appreciated.

It must also be pointed out that I have in almost all other cases submitted to consensus and dropped the case. Regarding Refund quest - I see no agreenance of consensus beyond that stated by LostPackets Spotlesssunshine (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"The secondary source we're using clearly links it to Dangerous. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Verified cite source 60's connection to cite source 59, the two are intrinsically linked and therefore the existence of both sources and their relevance to the wiki article seem justified. Cite source 59 satisfies criteria for WP:RS, this looks pretty solid if you take everything as a whole. LostPackets (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Well that's good enough for me, I guess it stays then. Thanks McGeddon and LostPackets. Matthew at WTF4Photography (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)"

Consensus was established two days ago, and yet you persist in attempting to derail the matter by retreading old ground. Give it a *break* already. LostPackets (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Have I not just clearly demonstrated that the citation is hearsay and have requested those that decided on consensus to subsequently weigh in again? I don't think that this is an unreasonable or overly belligerent request?Spotlesssunshine (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:IZAK harsh incivility

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

I am reporting User:IZAK for incivility and a possible threat. The editor is complaining about Misplaced Pages cheers templates I sent, one sent in October for a Halloween Cheer! and this December for a Seasonal Greetings!. Apparently the editor believes that I'm up to something, but I'm not up to anything at all as I explained: . IZAK then started accusing me of "spamming" and requested I send "Jewish holidays only" instead of apparently "bombard" the editor's talk page with holiday cheers, which I only sent two so far: . I became upset and told the editor that this discussion over two templates was "pathetic": , then IZAK sent me this semi-threat and viewed my archives as leverage for accusation: : "given from what I read here of other users' obvious irritation with your patterns of uncalled for behavior, I would strongly suggest you take a look at WP:SPIDERMAN before you get yourself in over your head with trouble you don't need. Consider this a warning! Take care." The entire discussion is on my talk page and not very long. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to add this ending of reply, but I removed it: — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The user requested you didn't fill their talk page with holiday templates, and that's not an unreasonable request at all. I don't know why this is an issue? Lankiveil 08:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close. I read through the entire linked discussion; I laughed when IZAK asked you to send a silent message in the future and I cried when you continued harassing him after he asked you to stop. All in all, it wasn't worth the price of admission, the sound was too loud and there was something squishy on the floor. Since there's nothing for anyone to do here other than pick up a BOOMERANG from concessions on the way out of this bad romcom, I give this thread two thumbs down. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently this is a laughing matter, I already know what's going to happen then. I want this report closed. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude, have some compassion. I'm trying to spare you and everyone else from reading IZAK's 5,000 word reply. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This exchange was good for a laugh. I'm going to keep sending cheer even if it annoys you! Agree, please close thread. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with non-standard list

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

I'm not sure where I should go for help with this one, so I thought I'd ask here and hopefully someone can direct me. I found Truck driving schools in the United States, which was a mess of all sorts of unlinked non-notable driving schools and basically just being used as a company directory - see this version. I cleaned out all the unlinked entries, added the usual request to keep the list to entries that have Misplaced Pages articles, and then a new account (@Spoontoon:) was created and reinstated them all again. I reverted and gave the new user the appropriate policies, that Misplaced Pages is not a directory etc (and noted them on the article talk page). Now the user has apparently created another new account (@SpoonToon2:) and reinstated all the non-notable entries again. I obviously don't want to get into an edit war, so what do I do to get this person to follow policies and to discuss rather than just revert? And, indeed, to get some feedback on whether I'm right here? (Finally, I apologise for my rude edit summary in the article this morning, which was due to early-morning frustration). Squinge (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And just a thought; with an edit summary of "Misplaced Pages is not for helping people? Really? No wonder they have to beg for money", this doesn't sound like a genuine new user. Also, my changes to this article attracted an impersonator by the name of @Squinge1:, which is similar format to the above (ie name and number) , so things are looking a bit suspicious to me. Squinge (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted - Misplaced Pages is not the yellow pages. Only the community colleges, not the private businesses, would merit their own article, and then only because they are colleges, not driving schools. So nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll comment there. Squinge (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Denisarona

This user appears to do very little except revert people's edits, and as far as I can see they never leave an informative edit summary. I challenged them recently to explain why they undid two of my edits , and they responded by undoing a third edit for no reason whatsoever . They then removed the talk page discussion. They further removed a warning to use edit summaries, making a personal attack as they did so.

This kind of behaviour is immensely damaging to Misplaced Pages. I hope someone will take steps to discourage it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Most complaints of this sort are by vandals annoyed at being caught, so let me start by saying that 200.83.101.225 appears to be in the right. Denisarona, what is the matter with this person's edits? Why must you treat as vandalism an edit that clearly improves a header, for example? Even if 200.83.101.225 were a banned user's sock, you wouldn't be justified in reverting an obvious improvement. Why must you insert a quotation when it's been properly paraphrased? Remember that our fair use standards prohibit the incorporation of nonfree content when it can be adequately replaced with free material, and this IP had replaced it. Do not again insert an unfairly used nonfree quote. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this user did not have the courtesy to respond here. There's virtually no community pressure or disincentive to encourage people not to behave as he did, and people who revert for no reason, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia, are very frequently encountered. For as long as they are tolerated with as little action as this case was, they'll continue to disrupt the encyclopaedia. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Amy Pascal

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

I was summoned to the article by the RfC bot, and noticed a legal threat that's somewhat stale but evidently no action was taken, and it is rather prominent on the page. See . I actually have neutrality concerns about that article, as too much of it is devoted to the recent hack. But editors need to be able to deal with this article without "warnings" like this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My impression was that it was meant to intimidate and harass, and enforce censorship of in-line referenced info. The page was temporarily protected by an administrator to stop that IP address from censoring referenced info and turning the page into a fanpage. (I felt harassed and victimised until the administrator stepped in.) I have added some referenced info about her philanthropic engagements to flesh out the page. More could be added about her career, but I was unable to find more frankly. I don't think the threat was serious, as it was mostly targeted at the vast majority of media corporations which used the word "racist" without inverted commas for her "jokes," which we did not do. The page seems completely neutral to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether serious or not, as you say it was intended to intimidate and harass, and we don't allow that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

True. I was glad when the administrator stepped in and protected the page (if temporarily). I guess I did not know I could have alerted admins here. Good to know if this ever happens again.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks a bit stale and the IP hasn't edited since then. Of course the section continues on. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is a bit stale; I just became aware of it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal thread removed , IP warned (for what it's worth, stale, but meh) .

Done? Igor the bunny (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Talk Page ownership

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

I feel slightly foolish raising this as an issue here, but I think an incident I have just experienced raises serious questions about the ownership of talk pages and the way in which they can be used to suppress discussion. I recently made an edit to the page Blithe Spirit (play), which was contested by another editor, and then altered by User:Ssilvers. Ssilvers chose to comment on my edit by expressing his views on my talk page . Since Ssilvers had written on my talk page, I replied on his. I have alweays considered this the polite thing to do, as it leaves a visible sign that a reply has been given. My reply was, I think, polite, though critical. I wanted to explain the context of my edit . The reply was very detailed. Ssilvers' response was to immediately delete the reply with the edit summary "rm old message" . The message was two minutes old. I was rather shocked by this apparently lying edit summary. I restored the comment with some spelling corrections, only to find it again deleted by user:Jack1956 with the edit summary "removing from Talk Page. This is Ssilvers Talk Page - any discussion about the article should be taken to that of the article" . I left messages on Jack1956's page explaining why I had commented on Ssilver's talk page (because he had first done so on mine), but these were simply deleted.

Why have I raised this here? The standard view is that editors have the right to remove content from their talk pages. I understand this, but I think that this case raises serious issues about civility and about honesty. Ssilvers chose to use personal talk pages rather than the article talk page for the issue. I politely followed his lead by replying on his talk page. This gave him the inappropriate privilage to delete my carefully explained comments and to, apparently, lie about why. Jack1956 repeated and confirmed this practice. I have previously tried to raise an issue on an editor's talk page , only to find that when it was transferred to the article talk page it was deleted as "inappropriate" trsnsferral from a talk page . It is important that editors should not have honest, carefully thought-through material intended for discussion summarily deleted with outright dishonest edit summmaries. It is also inappropriate that "friends" of such editors should delete responses from their own pages without discussion.

This raises questions about the apparent right to use talk pages as a private space in which to justify the process of, as the old phrase has it, "dishing it out without being willing to take it". Paul B (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, perhaps you were not aware, but convention states that removal of a talk page edit is acknowledgement that the message has been read. As for all the rest, I'd let it go. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that you have missed the point. The reply was not a warning or other "standard message". It was on the talk page because the editor had chosen ro initiate debate on talk pages. Paul B (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my comment was uncalled for. In addition to reading WP:SIGCLEAN, brought to your attention below, also consider reading WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions here and in the referenced incident may be reviewed as a consequence of your posting here. If you are really so spoiling for an argument, perhaps you need a brief break. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Outside of removing active block templates, users have a pretty wide latitude when it comes to their own talk pages. The actions you are describing may not be civil or terribly constructive on the other user's part, but they aren't actionable either. OhNoitsJamie 22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, May I direct your attention to WP:SIGCLEAN: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat, may I direct you to what I wrote. I am fully aware of existing guidelines. Repeating them misses the point. I am rasing the matter becuse I want to draw attention t what i think is an abuse of talk page privilages, as the title of thre section says. Do tyou really brlieve that it's approriate to lie in edit summaries, just because it happens to bne on a talk page? Do you think it is right that another editor (one who ia not the "owner" of the tlek page) should independently delete comments onr someomne else's talk page? The central issue here is that the guidelines themselves contain a problem. Paul B (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You'd do better starting a discussion on Talk:Blithe Spirit (play). If you get a consensus there (or nobody responds), consider your change accepted.

If the other user doesn't respond there, that's their own problem.

If you can't reach an agreement on that page, ask for input from others.

Content issues are best discussed on article talks, not user talks.

You tried a dialogue with the person, and they chose not to answer - that's fine. Doesn't matter. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You too miss the point. The editor, Ssilvers chose to initiate discussion via the talk page, not me. I would have been perfectly happy to discuss it on the article page. You also miss the point that I have also had edits removed from an article talk page because they were previously posted on a user talk page. This creates a "catch 22". Paul B (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There's no reverts on Talk:Blithe_Spirit_(play) since 2010.

Sort out the issue with that article there. If someone reverts, that can be dealt with.

If you have problems elsewhere...explain them and show diffs. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem with the user removing edits from their own talk page. Igor the bunny (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I also suggest you stop being uncivil in calling the editor in question a liar. He deleted your message: it doesn't matter. He left an edit summary calling it an "old message": if he's read it and chooses to do no more, it is an old message. Again, it doesn't matter, but he's still not a liar, and the inflammatory language doesn't help anyone, if you wish to press the substantive point regarding the article, post to the article's talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is what really happened

• First, Paul Barlow, an experienced Wikipedian, made this edit to the Blithe Spirit (play) article. Note that he did not add a reference for his assertion, and that his edit contained several typos. He did not include an edit summary.
• Next, User:Tim riley reverted Paul Barlow's edit, with the following edit summary: "rem trivia (not supported by citation)".
• Next, instead of bringing the disagreement to the article's Talk page, per WP:BRD, Barlow reinserted a similar change to his original one, this time even more poorly written, following it with the exact same reference that was already there in the text, which reference does not support his assertions that there was more than one episode of The Archers involved, and which does not make sufficiently clear how the BBC Radio 4 broadcast of the play was "directly linked" to episodes of The Archers.
• I then made a series of edits to streamline and clarify the text and to remove the duplicate ref that Barlow had added.
• At the same time, I added a statement to Barlow's talk page (1) mentioning the duplicate ref, (2) noting that the ref did not support the assertions that he had added, (3) trying to explain why Tim riley had assumed that his change was "trivia", (4) asking Barlow to bring the matter to the article's Talk page per WP:BRD instead of edit warring further, and (5) trying to explain what sort of reference was needed. I thought that the message was polite, under the circumstances.
• Instead of going to the article's Talk page, as I had suggested, Barlow then responded with a rant on my Talk page.
• I thought that his message on my Talk page contained many statements that I disagreed with, and others that were angry and unpleasant, and so I did not want to argue with him any further. If you look at the top of my Talk page, I state very clearly that I often delete messages from my talk page. Having read Barlow's message and decided not to argue with him about it, I deleted his message from my Talk page with the edit summary "rm old message", hoping that he would let the matter drop.
• Next, Barlow reverted my edit on my own Talk page, reinstating his rant, and calling me a liar (?!) in his typo-filled edit summary.
• Barlow also copied his rant from my talk page to his own.
• One of my friendly Talk page stalkers, User:Jack1956, then reverted Barlow's edit.
• Barlow also posted to Jack's Talk page, complaining that Jack was trying to "suppress discussion".
• Jack deleted this, and Barlow then demanded a reply from Jack.
• Barlow next opened this "discussion", but he did not inform me of it. Another editor had to point it out to me.

So, in summary, I don't understand why there is a bee under Barlow's bonnet, why he thinks I am a "liar", why an experienced Wikipedian would violate WP:BRD and then insist that everything is everyone else's fault, why he wants to berate people on their Talk pages instead of opening a relevant discussion on the article's Talk page, and why he wants to waste everyone's time at an ANI. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is obvously a content discussion, and belongs on the article talk page.

I cannot imagine anything admin-actionable. Igor the bunny (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• My attention has just been drawn to this discussion. I deleted Barlow's comments from my Talk Page, along with one or two other sections, as I am entitled to do, because I had read them and did not want to get drawn into a dispute with this editor, whose tone I found rather aggressive. Jack1956 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA on Zeitgeist talk page

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

There is a user .Encyclopedia-account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that has been engaged in essentially nothing but soap-boxing on the talk page for the Zeitgeist film series article. A perusal of this editor's minimal contributions shows edits exclusively to the article talk page save one response on the user's own talk page to concerns about the user's conduct on the article talk page. Here are the two most recent comments for an idea: . Plenty of editors have asked this individual to cease such disruptive commentary to no avail.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor you bring up should find a new hobby. I also recommend you cease demonstrating so much zeal in getting others sanctioned all the time. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield.--MONGO 05:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Can't see anything wrong. Saying "get rid of the zeitgeist page" is fine. A content discussion. Igor the bunny (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this editor has basically done nothing for the past few days but pop up to say "Zeitgeist is shit, we should delete this article" and I hardly think this editor has any intention of actually engaging in constructive discussion on the talk page. If you want some more clear policy violations then the following comments about Peter Joseph should suffice as they would constitute violations of BLP: . This editor is a textbook WP:NOTHERE case, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are they disrupting wikipedia? Igor the bunny (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

They appear to be using multiple accounts - see User:.Encyclopedia-viewer, who made much the same comments on the same talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you want WP:SPI Over there. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The accounts are almost certainly the same, but they don't overlap. I've left a note on their talk page that this needs to stop immediately. A block for being unable to participate constructively if this behavior continues is warranted; that said, if another admin feels like they've already crossed the line, I won't object to a WP:NOTHERE block. I, JethroBT 07:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that this user's viewpoint is essentially the same as User:Earl King Jr. --- has anyone checked to see if this is a sock of his. I've followed the Zeitgeist stuff on Misplaced Pages for quite some time and noticed something odd recently regarding the talk page timing. --- Without access to checkuser I'm obviously unable to verify what is what but it would be helpful if someone looked into it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is pretty obvious NOTHERE. I've left a nice note, and if it continues, I will indef block as NOTHERE. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got them all. A bit repetitive, considering the discussion involves pretty much the same people all along. It's not like they don't know you, User:Encyclopedia-account, think the article should be deleted and Zeitgeist is shit. Perhaps you might develop other arguments. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• User Some Different Stuff says Given that this user's viewpoint is essentially the same as User:Earl King Jr. --- has anyone checked to see if this is a sock of his. I've followed the Zeitgeist stuff on Misplaced Pages for quite some time and noticed something odd recently regarding the talk page timing. --- Without access to checkuser I'm obviously unable to verify what is what but it would be helpful if someone looked into it. user some Somedifferentstuff. I think that is a nasty uncalled for remark by Some Different Stuff who edits in tandem with The Devils Advocate on the article with the Zeitgeist clones from their blog sites ] Those two are pov pro Zeitgeist editors and have tried every attempt possible to reflect Zeitgeist Faq's material into the article and give Zeitgeist the major 1st. party voice in the article. I agree also with Mongo above that The Devils Advocate is very good at this battlefield mentality of accusing people of things and being litigious in general on talk pages and by that I mean not following general consensus of neutral editors. Calling another editor here a potential sock puppet S.D.S. is really a low blow and it is no wonder that you and Devils advocate have long block records. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems the user is still at it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm (aka IP 213.114.147.52), after being automatically unblocked when the block (set by User:Black Kite for BLP violations) expired, has resumed his disruptive editing. In spite of warnings, he is still adding unsourced material to biographies of living people: Please do something about him. 94.156.66.152 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 94.156.66.152. VoS is continuing to push his agenda on adding unsourced info regarding "ethnic Hungarians" into BLP articles, either as a logged in user or the IP address. They've been contacted many times on their talkpage, but doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Lugnuts 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct user name is: László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite, in the spirit of Christmas I blocked for only a week; I can see a NOTHERE block as well. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Lugnuts 11:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies - please also block his IP that he often uses to edit unlogged: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/213.114.147.52 (he violated BLPs using this IP just recently) 91.201.173.103 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Igor the bunny and WP:SOCK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No violation of WP:SOCK. There may be one or more prior accounts but they aren't being used concurrently, per GorillaWarfare's statements and my own understanding of who this user is. Jehochman 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Igor the bunny has stated that he's operated by someone who has another account, but he has not acknowledged the connection between the accounts, i.e. there's no way to determine what the original account is. This is unambiguously a violation of the third bullet of WP:SOCK, Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. I was planning to request enforcement of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings principle three, Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates, but the header at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement says that it's only for people violating remedies, not other policies that are based on the principle. Elsewhere on this page, we see that Igor's privately told GorillaWarfare of his other account name, and she notes that the other account is not behaving problematically, but Igor's continued involvement in WP:AN#Steeletrap on libertarian articles is unquestionably a use in a discussion internal to the project; as of right now, his signature appears thirteen times in that and other sections of the page. Rather than requesting an immediate block for repeated violations of WP:SOCK, I warned him, but all he does is scoff at the warning. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor has discarded his/her earlier account and so the bunny account is not an alternative account ... it is his/her only account. As an editor in good standing bunny may engage in debate here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not unusual for Misplaced Pages policies, there appears to be some tension between WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART. Since at least two admins know what Igor's previous identity was, and another suspects he knows, would it relieve the tension if the original account was indef blocked by one of those admins, or another admin they designate? Then the Igor ID would truly no longer be an alternate account, he wouldn't have to disclose the connection between the accounts, his CLEANSTART can continue, and he can participate in "internal discussions". BMK (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

One of Igor the bunny (talk · contribs)'s most recent IP's was 88.104.28.116 (talk · contribs), which is not a secret. That was one of Light Current's subnets, although that by itself doesn't prove anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I just now restored the above after someone clobbered a number of new entries. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the editing behaviour of user Sawol

Hello, I'd like to report an issue with the edits of user Sawol over the last couple of weeks.

He seems to be from Korea, and has repeatedly been damaging disambiguation pages concerning Korean metro stations, tagging them with a speedy delete tag ('uncontested move', sic) in order to promote one or either metro station to be the primary topic. Moreover, he has been agressively reverting users who got in the way with commentless reverts (example here, there are more but many page histories have been deleted as a result of page deletions). I noticed because one of my objections in which I told him to follow proper process was reverted, followed by a page deletion by an administrator who failed to do his due diligence and didn't notice the move was actually contested.

Now, needless to say a user is not the sole judge of what could be seen as a primary topic. There are processes and guidelines to follow, which he has chosen to ignore. Therefore I'm asking:

• For the disambiguation pages which were deleted to be restored. At least Jungangno Station, Dongbaek Station, Geumgok Station seem to be concerned, maybe others as well. If Sawol feels a topic should be primary, then he can always follow proper process and file a request so the move can be discussed in concertation and consensus.
• User Sawol should be reprimanded.
• It is to be examined why admins can be tricked into deleting pages just like that. It shouldn't happen that a user, any user, can just tag a page with a speedy clause, followed by a rapid execution of the request. Admins should do their due diligence, either that hasn't happened here, or something is missing from the procedure. E.g. adding a line saying they should examine the page history to check if the deletion is actually contested or not.

Thanks, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix this?

There seems to be a coding error, so that the explanation at the archive top of "Legal Threat at Talk:Amy Pascal" is not visible. Can someone fix this? I can't figure out what's wrong or why it's not appearing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It was missing the "result=" before the description. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Archive top for the template documentation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Sarek fixed it but somehow it got unfixed.Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27: Removal of referenced information

Issue #1: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs). He has not been blocked even once for any of this:

Removal or corruption of referenced information: , , , , , (referenced information changed)

Previous sections created at ANI: (behavioral issues, problems with sources), (edit warring, civility)

Other incidents: Notices left for recent edit warring, "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", disruptive editing and personal attacks

Issue #2: Unconfirmed but there may be a connection between this user and a previous banned user.

Account Creation:

• KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs) (account created 6 September 2012)
• Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) (account banned 10 days later on 17 September 2012 for long term editing issues). He had 65,000 edits and has his own cleanup template.

KahnJohn27 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• List of best-selling video games — 27

Also he edits articles related to Islam.

Jagged 85 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• History of role-playing video games — 320
• List of best-selling video games — 238
• (Articles related to Islam)

Issue #3: Is there no way to stop people from corrupting the content of this site such as removing or changing referenced information? It is sad that this happens so frequently on Misplaced Pages and some editors can maintain a presence on this website for years before they are stopped and many times the damage is not reversed. --Chrisonp (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisonp You are confusing me with someone else. My account is completely original. I am not Jagged85 and this is a legit account. All the users who complained about me at have bern thmselves been reported at ANI and many other users have complained those users who complained about me of being disruptive. Additionally you forget to mention that I was I who made it possible the usage of as a reliable source for box office gross.

Now about the Jizya article, I only removed the referenced material because theyvweren't properly cited because page numbere weren't specifically mentioned in some book sources which immaturely caused me to think it moght be wrong information and biased. However it was a completely immature and wrong decision on my part and I accept that. I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that.

Also about this edit where according to you where I changed referenced information on Muhammad bin Qasim, I actually had later added much more reliable and additional info about Al-Baladhuri's Qasim's death then there was earlier and you can see about this here . You have deliverately ignored that I later added much more reliable and referenced information then there was earlier. Referenced information can be changed if new reliable information is to be added or it is incorrect. It is a shame that people on Misplaced Pages keep picking bones of the past and use strong arm tactis, false and incorrect complaints and bullying to impose their opinion.

I therefore request the administrators to close this thread since it has no merit and is based on false claims and past incidences and also doesn't mention anything about my my contributions in improving the content Misplaced Pages. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also pleace notice how that User:Chrisonp whose account was created just yesterday makes his first edit about complaining me? Notice all his edits. How did he so quickly came to knew about my edits on Jizya? Additionally notice that he hasn't made even a single edit that isn't about me. Also notice how extremely skilled he is in editing Misplaced Pages. This is almost impossible for a new user. I suspect his account might either be a sockpuppet or he is from a Wiki on internet that lists info about a certain topic? And if it is user of a Wiki from the internet then I think I might already know who he is and from which Wiki he is and why he is here. This guy seems to be very suspicious indeed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, you said that "I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that." So you've admitted some of your mistakes. Have you added that information back?

Regardless of your later edit, you cannot change information in a reference as you did here.. For example if we had this statement: Room A has 10 boxes.<ref>A reference </ref>, I cannot change that statement to something else unless the reference says that.

Could you go through the links I mentioned in the "Removal or corruption of referenced information" section and make sure you have added back all the referenced information that you removed? For example this edit that you made about 3 months ago. Information cannot be removed simply on the basis of being biased against a group. An experienced user like yourself may already know that. thank you. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

User:Mehreen at Vebkraze (User talk:Mehreen at Vebkraze) is a purely promotional account with a spam username. Vebkraze is a commercial website . The user's name was originally Vebkraze; after a warning they changed it to Mehreen at Vebkraze. When cluebot warned them about the new name, they just deleted the warning and kept editing. All of their edits are to replace a deadlink in an article with a link to their website. I reported the above at WP:UAA, but all that happened was that their (empty) userpage was deleted. I think a block may be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Domain blacklisted for SEO spamming. MER-C 02:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Move of Cultural Marxism to User:OverlordQ/Cultural Marxism

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

OverlordQ has moved Cultural Marxism to a subpage in their userspace. This includes the entire history of the page. The page, as some will be aware, was recently subject of an AfD that ended in deletion. When the user was questioned, they claimed it was a userspace draft. Upon further questions, they removed the thread from their talk page with the summary "Hi, I'm a spider /\/\/\(OooO)/\/\/\", hence why I'm bringing the matter here, so it may have further input as how to best approach this. Snowolf 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this restoration was only the second admin act by this user in 2014. I am wondering given the "spider" comment if the account is secure. Chillum 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite is working on moving the page back, I think. Snowolf 19:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OverlordQ appears to be deleting his userspace, including his user talk page... Snowolf 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've put the history back where it should be, minus OverlordQ's edits. I've restored his userspace page as it was. I'm not sure why an admin is saving the history of deleted articles and advertising them via a dropbox link on their user page, but I fear, given the history of this article, that it cannot be good. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You've reinstated the deleted article history also; the edits prior to my redirect on the 29th shouldn't be present. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see the article was never deleted, only redirected? (and then moved to userspace). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted then redirected. My redirect was the first edit to the article post-deletion. Sam Walton (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've clearly lost my ability to read. Will do it now. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could somebody restore User talk:OverlordQ per WP:DELTALK? Snowolf 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page. -- GB fan 20:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't before, it's painfully obvious now the agenda-driven cliques are more interested in playing politics then actually making an encyclopedia. So, I'm done. GLHF. Q 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You could have participated in the AfD if you had such a strong opinion on the subject. Chillum 20:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of why you think your own POV justify violating consensus and policies, but it's sad to see you doing this. Snowolf 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Google still has the article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YnfWyT1EKWcJ:en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_Marxism+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Dustin (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will do for a while, until the page is crawled again. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Question - When an article is deleted, but a redirect is put in place - the entire history of the previous article is removed? Wouldn't it be more of a wiki-like solution to have the history in the redirect? — Ched :  ?  20:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The consensus from the discussion was to delete, but a redirect seemed sensible (and is now being debated). Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Editor posted the link at KIA, and is also active on 8chan. Dave Dial (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone think that it might not be ideal for this user to have admin tools? Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the above and the fact that they've hardly edited over the past few years, I can see removal of admin tools being a sensible idea. Sam Walton (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ummm .. all things considered, could you clarify "this user" please. And TY to all for the replies. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - OverlordQ. He used his tools to undelete the article. I didn't qualify it as he was the subject of the thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

He used his tools to move a page deleted from AFD to userspace (common use of the tools I think). That userspace was his (probably not too common). Is that really something to be used as a club? The ensuing GBCW is what it is. Let it fade away. Arkon (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks BK .. I assumed as much, but given that until this month I hadn't been around much - I just wanted to make sure. No view on OverlordQ at the moment - still reading and catching up. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Closing admin needed

Hi, there was an RFC open for a while here, but it was never closed with an assessment of consensus. One user resorted to sockpuppetry to promote his perspective, which muddled the discussion. If anybody has a moment to close the discussion out, that would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to close this right now but the best place to request RFC closes is at the RfC admin noticeboard, where this RfC is already listed. Sam Walton (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Samwalton9: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback usage by Modernist

I allege misuse by User:Modernist of rollback to revert, without explanation, edits that do not belong to the cases in "When to use rollback". I replaced a low quality image on several pages with a high quality version and was rolled back several times. The editing history shows other recent uses of rollback () that do not follow the guideline because they are not fixing vandalism or widespread nonsense. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a word User:Hekerui began unilaterally removing an important Mondrian painting from several articles, frankly it appeared to me to be vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing?! I replaced a Mondrian painting image on Misplaced Pages with an identical but higher quality from the Commons. By now an admin has removed the lower quality image as redundant. This is not vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? You were adding an inferior quality image to the articles; apparently you still do not realize that the image you added was in fact an inferior image...I spoke to the admin in question here in which I explained that the image you removed was the better image...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the Greenberg edit - I reverted to the original wording so as not to disparage an extremely well respected but often targeted art critic...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not give an explanation when you made the edit? The word "disparage" is not by itself vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you just don't know anything about the people who are constantly looking to disparage Greenberg...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Gothic edit was essentially vandalism by an IP who refused to read the reference used that clearly identifies the female in the painting, and who repeatedly made the same edit; the Cafe Wha addition that I removed while technically was someone's utterly unessential opinion about the article and his inaccurate opinion regarding his friends seems like vandalism of a sort and I added a coherent reference in my next edit...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in my last example was a newbie, why not copy-paste their comment on the talk page and explain there? Instead you rolled it back. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A little overzealous with the revert feature, perhaps, but the items you cite are all garbage edits which Modernist removed or repaired. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How was my edit garbage? I replaced a low quality image with an identical higher quality image because the image entered the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called your edit garbage, he called the edits you cited garbage, re-read the above comment please...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note Hekerui, more pixels is not always synonymous with better quality. The image you uploaded of Gray Tree by Mondrian had several problems: its was apparently scanned from a book, catalogue or magazine (i.e., it's riddled with halftone dots of different shades and colors), the contrast was overpoweringly pushed, the paintings edges were significantly cropped, and the colors (tones of grey) were not accurate. I've replace that image with one that does not present these problems. In the future, if you do upload more images of paintings, by Mondrian or others, please check the website of the museum (or gallery) where it is located. They usually have professional photographers that attempt to reproduce the picture faithfully (which is quite difficult). Unfortunately, others often accentuate contrasts and colors (because they like it better that way) deviating from a true representation of the original work. Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note too, I've also upload the Gemeentemuseum version: File:Piet Mondrian, 1911, Gray Tree (De grijze boom), oil on canvas, 79.7 x 109.1 cm, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Netherlands.jpg. While the pixel count is lower than the work linked above, the painting is uncropped (i.e. the entire work is visible), contrasts are not exaggerated, and no half-tone dots are present (since not scanned from a book reproduction). So this is actually the best version we have so far, even though the pixel ratio is lower. Coldcreation (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote is not a reason to roll me back and it's certainly not the reason given by Modernist. Modernist gave none, until I asked for one. That's misuse of rollback. "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is the issue, a behaviour. Hekerui (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User Modernist did what anyone else familiar with the reproduction of paintings would have done. The image Modernist reverted to did not present the problems of photographic reproduction which plagued the version you uploaded. It has nothing to do with behavior. It has all to do with publishing faithful representations of artwork. Coldcreation (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

False, Modernist used rollback to achieve that. That's not what the feature is for. Roll back is for obvious vandalism, our own user space, your own edits, edits by banned users, and widespread/bot edits provided there is an explanation posted. None of this applies. Just because someone "guards" a page does not mean they can misuse a tool. Hekerui (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line - you added an inferior image removing a good image; I put the good image back; and told you on your talk page to discuss first before re-adding the image...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. That questionable image of a painting by Mondrian has been replaced at Wikimedia Commons by one that more accurately depicts the work of art. Coldcreation (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that the better image was re-added to the articles. That was what I told User:Hekerui when he asked and here ...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is solved. I'd like an admin to give an opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I do not see anything actionable here. Seems like a misunderstanding which has been resolved. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to point out that even though Modernist's changes were justified, using rollback was not the best choice, and he should be more discreet in the use of rollback in the future. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion/citation evaluation, and uncivil conduct by user

Earlier today, I edited the articles about two Polish cities with what I sincerely believe to have been constructive edits. Here we can see a removal of substantial content regarding demographics of Gorzow Wielkopolski (Landsberg), for the supposed reason of the source being unreliable. user:Volunteer_Marek feels as though he does not need to explain his rationale to me, which I find to be both personally insulting and poor conduct on the part of the encyclopedia editor.

Here, the user falsely alleges that I am a sock-puppet of a banned user. When I brought these issues up on his talk page, he responded by deleting my entry, adding "aren't you banned?".

I then decided to log into my account ("bring out the big guns", so to speak), Vrinan, and ask for a third time for Volunteer_Marek to provide an explanation for his reversions. I also brought up his uncivil behavior and suggested that if he, for some reason, has a problem with me, it would be best to bring it to my attention. He has refused to do so, and I feel compelled to bring this censorious and rude display to the attention of the administrators. I hope we can all get to the bottom of this. Vrinan (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've used a source from 1906 to support a claim for "etween 1249 and 1945..."? Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1906 source presumably explains the proliferation of Germans in the region from the 13th century to the 20th century. From 1906 to 1945, the population distribution of the city presumably became even more German, as following WWI, many Poles migrated into the revived independent Poland, reducing the extent of this minority population in the Weimar Republic. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

IP user making threats on talk page

I've been around for a while, and I've seen a few strange things on Misplaced Pages, but here's something new for me. I've got an IP user threatening on my talk page to file a police report against me for making edits to the J. J. Arrington article (see ). I last edited the article in September 2014, and none of my prior edits were controversial in the least. The whole episode is a little weird. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages and the person making them should get an indefinite ban immediately. However, that person may still have legal rights if the person he is 'alleging' that you are defaming is indeed their father. An admin should look into this right away, explain to them Misplaced Pages policy and discuss with them their complaint and the best way to solve it, as it may be valid. 193.109.199.132 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the account (which may be a temporary IP so it might not be effective) and left a note. Zero 04:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that I can't find any mention of a child anywhere, and it would seem that if the child could compose a message like that, they would probably been have around when the person was still playing professional American football. Of course it's still easily possible the subject does have a child, but still the claim seems to raise more BLP issues than anything Dirtlawyer1 did. Also I took a look at the page, and don't see anything of real concern, so I think WP:DOLT is satisfied. That said, complaining to Dirtlawyer1 is not quite as weird as it sounds. Although the edit was 4 months ago, they were the last person to edit the page so may have been the obvious person to message (particularly if the OP was using the mobile site, although it doesn't look it). Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the DOLT essay, Nil Einne. Unfortunately, it's a scenario I have witnessed first-hand several times in my 5+ years editing Misplaced Pages, and it's a scenario all of us should keep in mind when dealing with article subjects or their family members when they are objecting to inaccurate or potentially defamatory content. I, for one, do not believe that immediately blocking article subjects or their family members is usually the optimal way to handle such complaints and/or threats.

My interest in the J. J. Arrington article is the subject's status as a consensus All-American player of American football, and my edits were related to his college football career and formatting his college honors in the article infobox. As a practicing lawyer, I am very sensitive to the unfairness inherent in the DOLT scenario and the rising level of frustration that can be caused by the often mechanistic responses of some Misplaced Pages editors and administrators, and I have intervened in a number of such scenarios to address the legitimate concerns of article subjects or their family members. I reviewed my article edits after receiving the talk page message from the IP user, and also checked the article for controversial content; my edits were non-controversial, and as far as I can tell, there is no controversial content in the article. That's why I brought the IP user's complaint here: it seems to be an irrational threat without any remotely valid basis. Rather than trying to engage the IP user, under the circumstances, I thought it better to draw on ANI's community resources. We will see what, if anything, the IP user does to follow up his threat/complaint. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A Scandal Amongst Admins on Misplaced Pages: Fake Misplaced Pages Accounts Created by Admins for Edit Warring

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

Calling on admins and editors to take look at my comment and the disturbing related exchange that triggered it, and do something about it. This may be the tip of the iceberg and may even be a much larger scandal on Misplaced Pages. I don't find this neither funny nor appropriate. 193.109.199.132 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I could ask the little doctors to comment here, but that would be a violation of WP:SOCK, and I wouldn't want to get them in trouble. Not that I know who they are, of course. Happy new year to all admins and editors who are still up! Drmies (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• I took the liberty of making the headline more appropriate, but I would like to point out that only one admin created the accounts; the other merely abused them. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily agree with fooling around like this but I only count 2 mainspace edits, 1 reverting the other removal within 2 minutes. The other few edits are simply fooling around on the user talk pages of those involved. Are you really calling such irrelevant nonsense as a scandal compare to all the other stuff that we know goes on? Also speaking of not appropriate, is there any reason you didn't inform either party which the header clearly tells you to do when you visit this page and edit it? You may not have named them here, but you did link to the discussion and were clearly referring to 2 editors (I'm only referring to the 2 main accounts, I'll say it's fine to ignore the joke accounts). Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator but just a mere editor trying to figure out what's going on, with limited success. But I thought we had an allowance for accounts created for the sake of "humor", broadly construed. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

constant addition removals on any Greek related topic

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

It seems like the user Alexikoua almost cringes anytime the word Persian is added to any article directly related to Greece, despite all additions I put in these statements related to it are fully sourced and well written literally every time. Look how many times he instantly removed my sourced additions, all of them only those related to Greece, with none of them having a valid reasons at all. ("IP disruption", no edit summary, and so go on)

This is just a tip of the iceberg and just look at him hammering on any addition I make on Greek related articles. Anyway, the reason I brought it up here is not just the sole fact that his allergy towards additions related to my edits is extremely annoying, it's even more funny when he literally obliges me to, after reverting whatever he can revert, in order to make any of these additions to any Greek related page, I need to bring it to the talk page first(!) So I need to ask him permission basically to edit on any Greek related article, per his own words. That's crazy and probably one of the most ridiculous things. Not only did I make the first step numerous times and ask him on his talk page to mediate firstly with me if he really just doesn't approve of certain additions (which he just deletes instantly afterwards and labels it as "trolling") It just doesn't work like this, on top of the fact that it's very disrespectful and disruptive. I've told him so many times not to remove well sourced statements/additions without a good reason, or not doing any effort himself to thin the information down he think is too excessive, or at least writing me on my talk page before reverting everything (a very basic thing, really, but even that he couldn't)

I left him another note about this as well today, which he instantly deleted as well. Obvious WP:JDL is obvious and this has to stop. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong, or maybe I am wrong and he's right, but this is just ridiculous in my opinion. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All the specific edits clearly fall into wp:undo weight, as stated in the edit summaries, while the unlogged editor was welcomed to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages. For example he insists that the "History of Greece" article should have an "Persian era section" ], quite weird for a 1-2 year period that concerns the Second Persian Invasion (480-479 BC) to have a section, while the article concerns a total of ca. 4 millenia of history (not to mention that historiography usually prefers to term the specific events as "invasion" or "war" not as "era"). Same undo weight in the rest of the above mentioned articles, such as in Greeks, Thessaly and Classical Greece ]. In the last article for an unexplained reason he inisists to add the map of the Persian Empire, while at the same time vital information about the Persian invasion against Greece is absent.

Although the unlogged user has been continuously asked to participate in the correspodent talkpages (in one case I opened a discussion in Classical Greece but still no response ]) he just insists to post unacceptable comments in my talkpage simply accusing in general and ignoring wp:undo weight.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Transphobic accusations at Leelah Alcorn

The Deletion discussion of this article has consended to unfounded accusations of transphobia and proclamations to disrupt the projectincase their preferred outcome is not met by Rubashkyn (talk · contribs). This Article needs admin attentions and probably more uninvolved editors as it is starting to get emotional. Editors should be able to vote in this discussion without having to fear personal attacks. Thanks Avono (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

'Accusations of transphobia' is not a synonym for 'transphobic accusations'. It would be helpful if you could clarify which you mean, and which user(s) you are levelling the accusation at. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I point towards Rubashkyn, who headed a proclamations with "LGTB Phobia", I removed the IP, from the evidence, because I misunderstood that as anybody who removes transphobia from the article is transphobic. Avono (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

can some admin please help me

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

thumb|original version of political party Party of the Swedes

can someone please make it look like the long term consensus original version of the Template:Infobox political party? Dannis243 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the talk page... I, JethroBT 12:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits by IP 108.11.225.129 to King v. Burwell

IP user 108.11.225.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has engaged disruptively in repeatedly adding material about Jonathan Gruber's non-subsidy PPACA comments to the article King v. Burwell (see , , , ). There is a consensus that the non-subsidy comments are irrelevant to the topic of the article and should not be included. Similar additions of non-subsidy material were made using other IP addresses in November 2014, which resulted in the article being semi-protected :

• 173.67.163.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): , , , , ,
• 173.67.166.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
• 173.67.170.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): , , , , ,

Notice that these edits have very similar edit summaries that make me believe the same user is IP-hopping as part of the continued disruption. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

IP creating article empty article sections, editing disruptively after numerous warnings

For about a week, IP user 70.190.229.97 has been creating sections in various articles but leaving them empty except for the article improvement tags he leaves in each empty section he creates. He adds no content, just the improvement tag. He has been asked not to do so several times, has been warned that this equates disruptive editing and that he could be blocked for doing so. He never responds to any warnings or comments on his talk page, even after being advised to do so by an administrator, he just removes the warnings, occasionally saying "sorry" in the edit summary. He has stated in edit summaries that he understands the warnings and won't do it again, but then goes right back to the same disruptive behavior. His other disruptive behavior has been adding Ref Needed banners on articles when plenty of references are already present. He also has a history of edit warring and has been warned about it by editors as well as at least one administrator. After numerous requests and warnings, he continues to not use edit summaries. He has removed categories and established content without explanation or even an apparent productive motive.

• A few diffs and examples of empty sections added and inappropriate refs needed tags along with reverting all of it back after being warned on his talk page that the edits are inappropriate and disruptive:

Matthew J. Munn article: ,

Paradise Cay, California article: , ,

Mike Elliott (comedian) article:

• Examples of necessary wholesale reversion of article edits when IP has removed categories, content, added extraneous content, and made strange, unexplained section changes:

Jim Meskimen article:

Jason Lee (actor) article (previously had to be been rewritten due to the IPs strange edits, empty sections, and inappropriate subsections and undue weight added - it was all reverted back in today with the following):

• Inappropriately adding references needed to article with an existing ref needed banner, but where plenty of references already exist:

David Cross article:

• IP's talk page revision history showing warnings left and removal of warnings, including his apologies for edits and indication that he would not repeat the disruption:

Edit warring comment from Drmies:

These are just a few examples. My guess is there are more articles across Misplaced Pages where empty sections have been created by this IP. Either he doesn't understand the warnings and comments that have been left on his talk page or he doesn't care. It's strange behavior, to say the least. If he had an account and was looking to rack up edits, I could better understand his motivation (not agree with it, but understand). But as an IP account, it doesn't make sense to me, outside of intentional disruption and possibly now seeking to win. Some of his edits have been fine, some of it has been helpful, but the seemingly intentional disruption and ignoring of MOS and general procedure and policies is concerning and seems problematic. Perhaps a mentor is what's needed? But, until then, I expect the defiant disruption and inappropriate editing to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope Leo X and biased deletion of well sourced material.

Hi all. I have a problem in the article about Pope Leo X (1475-1521). A member of the Medici family, he was the Pope who condemned Martin Luther's 95 theses. He had many enemies, he had several assassination attempts, and someone put graffitis in Rome saying "the pope is Gay". Now, a section of the article included this claim, citing an ex-priest, a novellist, and an antipapist writer of the XVIII century. They also mentioned as authoritative contemporary historians both Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540) and Paolo Giovio (1483-1552), claiming they both supported the allegations of the Pope's homosexuality. Over a year ago I went to the talk page and reminded them that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (WP:EXCEPTIONAL).

Everything had a huge turn because a few weeks ago I searched again and now both Guicciardini's and Giovio's books are available online. It so happens that they deny the accusations of homosexuality. I wrote a lengthy post in the talk page including copypastes of the original texts. And then I proceeded to rectify the article. I was automatically reverted by User:Contaldo80 and later by User:Frimoussou. No explanation, they just reverted me because they wanted to. The latter user had never edited the article and he had been away from wikipedia for almost a month, but he promptly jumped in only to censor my edit. I assumed good faith and asked in the talk page what was the problem he saw in my modifications. He said I was not allowed to translate the Italian and Latin quotations into English because the translation would be an "original research". I addressed his issue (explain what the authors said without including my own translation) but then he reverted me once more, with a newly invented reason.

Guicciardini's book is right there: anyone can read it! There is no point denying his words, if we can all see them. So please, dear wikipedia administrators, would you advice me how to proceed? I don't want to be automatically reverted just because well sourced information does not fit someone's ideology. El Huinca (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

These books have always be "available". There's nothing new. They don't deny the homosexuality of Leo X. El Huinca quotes no recent reference denying the homosexuality of Leo X. That's original research Frimoussou (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested on Talk: Pope Leo X that the editors should stop the personal attacks (allegations of lying) and should take the content issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard for volunteer moderation. Administrative action should only be necessary if the editors do not take the advice to be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

off site planning of vandal activity

I saw this and thought you should know.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8823908

"Honestly, I thing a dozen Nim users should band together and register at Misplaced Pages to turn the vote the next time someone tries to delete the article. If the deletionists come with formalistic arguments, just synthesize a few articles on sites that fulfill their WP:RELIABLE criteria. There's got to be somebody working for a commercial (read: non-blog) website who doesn't like deletionism and would post a small article on Nim (or any other topic suffering from the same problem) just to stick it to them."

--Tamestan3 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In reference to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language) (2nd nomination). The Article is deleted but I will watch-list it in case they come back. Thanks for notifying us. Maybe it should be salted just in case? Avono (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

on reddit as well http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2r06ej/what_is_special_about_nim/cnbeog9 Avono (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)