Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benea (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 31 July 2012 (→Curiouser and curiouser: looks fixed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

About Niemti

Gross BLP violation by User:Bittergrey

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

User:Bittergrey is currently the subject of (this RfC/U). Although I have avoided, for years now, all contact with Bittergrey and the pages that he edits, I have entered my opinion and related endorsements at the RfC/U .

In writing his comments (to User:WLU), however, Bittergrey wrote:

"Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Misplaced Pages by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved."

I am both a WP editor (User:James Cantor) and the subject of a BLP (James Cantor). To accuse me (very falsely) of having a financial interest in any of this, never mind in supporting WLU, is a gross violation of BLP policy. I have deleted the offending statement, indicating precisely the reason why.

However, given his tempestuous history (with me and many others), Bittergrey is unlikely to take any statement from me seriously. WP is ultimately responsible for the presence of such statements on its pages, and Bittergrey needs to be told exactly how serious such BLP violations are.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This comment is totally uncalled for and is clearly a BLP violation. I don't think that it is enough for oversight, however. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU has written James Cantor into articles five times, and cited him 38 times. In this regard, he is second only to James Cantor himself (with seven and 45). This publicity and visibility is good for James Cantor's standing as a professional. Clearly, he can profit from it. As a result, he has a financial interest in supporting WLU and weakening anyone who might be in conflict with him, such as me. This is particularly true if CAMH publications including his are frequent topics of debate, which they are in this case. He has a lot to gain (or keep) if the decision goes against me. Thus, he does have a financial interest, and should not have claimed to be uninvolved.

To qualify "Heavy", WLU cites the publication ten times in the infantilism article, even though it only mentions infantilism on one page. It is cited nearly twice for each time it uses the word 'infantilism.' In the whole of Misplaced Pages, the only active editors who cite it are WLU and Cantor. WLU also cites two publications of Cantor's coworkers at the infantilism article, even though they don't use the term "infantilism" at all. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

By Bittergrey's logic (a self-declared paraphilic infantilist and an amateur activist for his own views of his practice) Bittergrey has the same "financial interest." In fact a greater one, since Grey does not have any credentials or academic post as alternatives to promote their own work and views. I leave it to Misplaced Pages to determine what sort of editor it wants to retain. For the record, I'd take Cantor the professional academic over Bittergrey. But your mileage may vary. It's a brave new world. The expert is dead! Long live the amateur activist!Bali ultimate (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bali ultimate, I haven't made a dime off of my involvement in either infantilism or Misplaced Pages, and I don't ever expect to. That is what "amateur" means. I hold down an unrelated full-time job to pay the bills. No finances means no financial conflict of interest. If I did this professionally, like James Cantor, then yes, I would have a financial conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're just a semi-anonymous crank who gets to defame professional academics for kicks on Misplaced Pages and get away with it because of the incompetent moderation here. Your own conflict of interest is your own desire to control articles about your interests. So it goes. So it goes. (For those interested, here is the website Bittergrey runs , which is promoted on their userpage.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with Bali's choice of words I have to agree that both users seem to have a COI. James has pledged to avoid editing certain articles because of this reason. It may be a good idea to make a similar arrangement with Bittergrey and/or topic ban Bittergrey from Cantor-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. At the moment I am too lazy to do a full background check like I normally would. p.p.s. Please see User_talk:James_Cantor#Hiya_James.21

While getting some quick background I looked at a user talk page and found User talk:Bittergrey#Behaviours... where BitterGrey has recently engaged in connecting-the-dots regarding editors who are in good standing with the community—it's not an egregious case, but it is not helpful. Can anyone explain whether BitterGrey's presence is required at paraphilic infantilism? If not, a break from that topic might be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you his presence is not required at paraphilic infantilism or any other article on Misplaced Pages. Arcandam (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for some expansion on this comment? Doesn't AGF require accepting the possibility that anyone can become a contributing editor? Before FiachraByrne got involved in August 2011, most of the sources for the article were from me. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can, I'll be glad to explain it a bit. It sounds a bit harsher than what it means. Please read WP:DIVA if you haven't already. No, I am not saying you are a diva. But what I am saying is that we, as an encyclopedia, do not depend on a single user with expertise to write an article about a specialist subject. Just for fun lets assume I am an expert on the effects of global warming (I am not an expert on anything, but whatever). If I get hit by a bus we don't have to delete the article on global warming. So basically no single person is required to be here in order for us to succeed as an encyclopedia, not even Jimbo. Arcandam (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Not a native speaker, please let me know if I am unclear and/or make mistakes.

Arcandam, your English is fine. Could I ask you to contrast the paraphilic_infantilism and diaper_fetishism articles? That is my effect. Before WLU and friends became involved, I contributed most of the text and sources to the infantilism article. Some of those were copied over to the diaper fetish article. When WLU became involved, I decided to let him control the diaper fetishism article. That article didn't improve. At infantilism, even though I could no longer effectively edit, I was able to hold WLU somewhat accountable. A third editor, FiachraByrne, contributed a large number of new sources - to the infantilism article. She generally took WLU's side, but she did delay two sections of politically correct text sources to politically incorrect sources. Had I not been there, that development wouldn't have happened. So, even though WLU has kept me from editing for a year, I can claim indirect credit. BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this a BLP violation if this comment was made at his RFC/U? Was BH making comments about the user or the subject? Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean BG? That user is a subject of an article. And WP:BLP applies outside of articles. Arcandam (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Johnuniq,etc.)

Effectively, I haven't been able to edit the paraphilic infantilism article for a year. WLU has seen to that. Breaks/bans against me would be academic. Taking down the lingual comment was suggested at yesterday's ANI thread, but the RFC/U was opened before I was able to consider the advice. By the way, one of the edits that WLU wouldn't let me make was to change "behaviour" to "behavior." I'd be OK with changing the entire article over to the British spelling, but the spelling should be consistent.

I've been spending more time on wikibreak, and at different articles. However, WLU just follows me to them, spreading conflict. An example is Sexology, which escalated to ELN.

As for Bali ultimate's comment about the "incompetent moderation here," he might want to give some thought about why this BLP wasn't brought to BLPN.

Also, according to Google scholar, infantilism isn't Cantor-related

However, given that James does have a conflict regarding the outcome of the RFC/U, should he be deleting content from the "responses" section of the RFC/U? Since this round started with WLU deleting my comments, Cantor's censorship is strangely fitting. If I'm not going to be permitted to mount a defense, the entire process will be pointless. BitterGrey (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Cantor's refactor. And the next time you accuse him of having a conflict of interest in the RFC, you'll be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BitterGrey has simplified the discussion by asserting "conflict" just above, with a wikilawyer's "should he be deleting content" assertion, and with a helpful RFC/U diff to highlight BitterGrey's egregious misuse of Misplaced Pages to assert a COI of a named real-life person paying a named editor—all with zero evidence (apart from a wall of diffs that are totally unrelated to the COI assertion). Conceivably the above comment suggesting this report should have been at WP:BLPN might have been in good faith, but reality favors the "raise any smokescreen to deflect the discussion" interpretation. In light of the information at the RFC/U, and given the failure to produce any evidence of a named real-life person paying a named editor, and given the above re-linking to that assertion on the report dedicated to the topic, it is clear that BitterGrey should be topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to sexuality. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, James Cantor's action was a straight-up undo, it wasn't a refactoring. Bittergrey made the comments, James undid the whole edit, the net result was to revert back to this version. I'm agnostic on what should have been done, but at no time did James make Bittergrey say something Bittergrey didn't initially say. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now -- my apologies for misreading the history. Thanks to Bali for reverting it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A solution?

Right now the text has again been reverted. Though I view the entire edit made by BG to be offensive, accusatory and wrong, it's still BG's view on the situation. The offending text in question appears to be solely what James Cantor quoted above:

Rather than undoing the whole set of edits (then redoing then undoing ad nauseum), would anyone have any objections to re-doing the edit but removing the quoted section? That seems to be the best way to address James Cantor's (valid IMO) issue with the edit while allowing Bittergrey to express his opinion during a RFC/U. Endorse? Hate? Ban me for suggesting it? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If the comment was truly seen as a BLP violation, quoting it in additional locations (like here) would be a bad thing. BitterGrey (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The page currently does not feature the claim. If you either agree to either not replace your comment, or replace it without that block of text, you would resolve the issue, and it could then be removed here as well with the section hatted. Are you willing to post your comment without that particular section, or not replace your post at all, thus resolving the issue? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A misunderstanding?

It seems that my comment has been misinterpreted as implying that money is being exchanged between Cantor and WLU. That was not my intent. James Cantor and his colleagues would be benefiting from the publicity that WLU is providing on Misplaced Pages. In addition to Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree; WLU has fought to cite two other publications from Cantor's colleagues. Freund & Blanchard (1993), which discusses masochists and pedophiles, never even using the term 'infantilism.' (Not using the term was the reason WLU gave for removing the DSM, even thought the DSM actually does use the term. WLU has removed other sources because they didn't mention the appropriate term.) F&B (1993) wasn't even cited by their colleague (figuratively just down the hall), R. Dickey. Dicky's letter to the editor, on "autopedophilia" was not peer reviewed and so is not a medRS. It also doesn't use the term 'infantilism' at all. Were it not for WLU's efforts, these two sources wouldn't be cited. Thus, James Cantor and colleagues Blanchard, Freund, & Dickey benefit from WLU's efforts.

I'd be willing to reword the comment to make it more clear, or to provide diffs to support the levels of promotion. However, it is difficult to maintain any faith in Misplaced Pages's processes with the rampant deletion of my input(this week:). Now those reading discussions can't see the whole story, just the fragment that one side chose not to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment has not been misinterpreted. You may have worded it differently than your intended meaning, but that's a different kettle of fish. As to your current assertion, by that logic, every time a Glock is mentioned in an article about a shooting we are providing publicity for Glock. Which is absurd. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! It would be like you accusing me of promoting the Grand Canyon Railway by uploading this image. Or by promoting Misplaced Pages with this section. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re HandThatFeeds: COI doesn't apply to the promotion, but the promoter. Were those mentions being added by a Glock employee, that employee would be editing under a financial COI. If they were being debated and a Glock employee argued in their favor, that employee would still have a COI. (He wouldn't be editing under a COI if he doesn't edit, however.) If the Glock employee argued for the banning of an amature editor who thought mentioning only Glocks was POV, then too the Glock employee would have a financial COI. Now can we change the metaphore - it is uncomfortable discussing firearms when the professional has already threatened off-wiki action against the amature.

Re Robby The Penguin: Maybe if you were a Grand Canyon Railway employee, but I don't think one picture would cause much of a stir even if you were. Am I permitted to mention how many times James Cantor and WLU have written James Cantor into articles, or cited him? I have diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. Your "financial COI" argument is nonsense. Simply being employed by the subject does not mean the editor is getting any financial compensation via the edits. Employees are allowed to edit material relating to their employer, but need to take care not to stray into promotion. And I do not see that WLU has crossed that line. Further, you have provided no evidence WLU is employed by Cantor, or is recieving financial benefits from mentioning Cantor. It is irrelevant if a third party could benefit from edits or citations; if we were concerned about that, we would not be able to make any reference to any business. That is what people have been trying to explain to you, to no avail. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for suggestions on how to preserve the point of the edit without the BLP dramatics, legal threats, etc? I'd be willing to reword it or substantiate it with diffs. I'm not willing to let my RFC/U response be censored by those I'm responding to. BitterGrey (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing your edit without including the quoted section would do it methinks. I suggested it above, not sure why it's not acceptable. If you want your RFC/U to include an accusation of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, supported by nothing more than speculation, there may not be a way. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an option. How about "Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) are cited on Misplaced Pages due to the efforts of WLU (eg.) and author James Cantor(eg.). No other active editor has cited this source. Similarly, WLU has fought to cite other articles by James Cantor's coworkers(eg...). The publicity that WLU provides through Misplaced Pages may help to advance James Cantor's visibility, potentially advancing his career. As a result, James Cantor has a financial interest in supporting WLU." I can also include the cites/mentions stats with or without diffs, but that would be about a hundred diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't do. You've just repeated your unfounded BLP-violating allegations in different words.

It seems that you don't understand, Bittergrey, the damage you do to your own cause. The RFC is about your ongoing failure to assume good faith of other editors, including the repeated, unsupported allegations that you have made about sockpuppetry and cabalism in those who disagree with you. Yet, here you are on ANI repeating other serious allegations, this time ascribing financial motives to an editor who edits under his real name and who has, above, denied them outright. Allegations that multiple editors have described as BLP violations. Why would you do this? This is an editor who, as longstanding medical editor User:WhatamIdoing noted, is a frequently cited mainstream scholar and whose papers it is therefore entirely appropriate to cite frequently on this topic, and who, based on my not-inconsiderable-knowledge of Canadian academic promotion, would gain precisely zero from being cited on WP. User:Colin here reminds you elsewhere that a RFC/U is the chance to show that your character and correct any misapprehensions that others have. As he puts it "It is your opportunity to demonstrate you are a reasonable person or an unreasonable person. Your choice." I urge you to step back, BitterGrey, and consider your approach --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, please be aware that the editor who first added the text Cantor objected to here is James Cantor is WLU. I understand that you have an off wiki-friendship, but if the text is offensive, it should be offensive no matter who added it. I regret that you seem to think it is OK for other editors to make comments about my sexuality, but not for me to comment on their edits(eg ). In the new version, all statements that wouldn't equally apply to any author are supported with diffs. Feel free to detail why publicity and citation, so critical to academic advancement in the US, isn't important in Canada.BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, in the past, already corrected your allegation that I have "an off-wiki friendship" with WLU. I do not. I know his real name, where he lives and a few other personal details. That's it. Stop trying to poison the well.

I don't think it is okay for people to make comments about your sexuality. However, I haven't ever seen anybody doing so. What I see is people pointing to your userpage where you publicly disclose your website and thus your own interest (and COI) in this topic. Why do you keep repeating this same claim, over and over again?

The problem is that you aren't just commenting on edits, are you? You are ascribing (very damaging, financial) motives without any evidence, which is directly contrary to WP:AGF guidelines

Tenure track and promotion committees at universities in Canada, as in the US, wouldn't give a flying fig about citations on WP. They are interested the candidate's books (especially those published by academic and university presses), peer-reviewed publications in prestigious, high impact journals, and to a very much lesser extent conference presentations, as well as teaching and committee work evaluations of course. WP wouldn't get so much of a look-in.

That's it from me, BitterGrey. It really is in your hands. Slp1 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So it isn't different than the US. "Citing your latest paper in the hope that increased visibility will drive up your H-index" is explicitly listed among the examples at WP:MEDCOI. Edits towards that goal would be edits toward that goal, irrespective of whether they are direct insertion or driving off opponents for someone expected to do the insertion. The second example is "Attempting to diminish or disparage a competitor's views or publications." Since the DSM and Cantor have competing definitions of paraphilia, this one applies too. Thus, the essay (which I didn't write) describes the motivation, the conflicted interest. Again, edits to enable removal are edits. His edits to support WLU, who is supporting him, can serve these motivations.

As for my sexuality, it was brought up here by Bali ultimate, as evidence of my _financial_ COI, at the previous ANI by Slp1, and at WQA, and at WikiProject Medicine. And that is just this week. The slur was most clear at the project: "someone in Tylas' situation is likely to accidentally misread sources...". BitterGrey (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I was looking to see what WLU was up to (since he mentioned it) - and saw my name. I must comment about what BG posts here. I am an individual. I do not appreciate being profiled as part of a certain group. I have dissociative identity disorder. This does not mean that I respond in the same way as all those with DID, just the same as I do not respond the same way as all those who have a M.S., were Olympic level athletes, who have raised children, who are mothers, etc... Profiling is simply wrong and I do not appreciate being a victim of it and neither should BG. If you must accuse, please do so on our individual actions. Being honest should not give others the right to sit and judge.~ty (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bittergrey for continuing BLP violations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism by IP address (109.60.7.172)

Note: Please see here for proof this wasn't me. Irānshahr (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Misplaced Pages

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran–Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.

I would appreciate if something was done to stop him because this cannot go on and I will not accept personal threats and forgery of history and removal of sources.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are, otherwise you would not commit the same vandalism in all the same threads as Iranshahr did. Strange coincidence ah?

You must be crazy. I don't live in Hjørring but Copenhagen. I am not an Arab or a Muslim even. That sockpuppetry investigation turned out to be false. You removed the notice of investigation about your edists from your edit page so I did the same since you had threatened me.

Iraqi Shi'ah Arabs are not Iranian. Nor in terms of langauge, culture or ancestry (genetics). All your edits have provided ZERO sources while you have deleted sourced material from my edits. You are basically guilty of vandalism and forgery of history like the Iranian nationalist you are.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Greater Iran

It appears two IPs are edit warring on the article Greater Iran. Don't know what the exact details are, but this needs the involvement of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've asked Ed about this. Give him some time to respond, he hasn't responded to me either, he may just be busy. His last edit from today was before your post I believe. Unless you want to remove it from Ed's page and leave it here. --Activism1234 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OR if another admin sees it here before Ed, maybe they can just settle it and then you can remove it from Ed's page.

COMMENT - I'm not an admin, but it's clear both IP address are in an edit war and have violated 3RR and are just reverting each other. Both should be punished, in my opinion, and the page reverted to what it was before this edit war. Again, just my opinion. --Activism1234 01:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: It appears one of the editors has filed a complaint about it directly above. --Activism1234 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a long ban for the user Iranshahr and the IP address he is using now. He not only deletes sourced material but also adds false material that is COMPLETELY unsourced and that is not even in accordance with what other SOURCED Misplaced Pages articles on similar matters say. Not to mention the reality. Moreover he invents lies about my person, threatens me with the police (outrageous claim) and accuses me of living in a place where I do not live and never even been in my life (my IP address confirm this). He is clearly an Iranian nationalist (take a look at all his edits or even username - he deleted material/commited vandalism on several pages just at the span of 1.5 days, apart from those that I have engaged in with him as a counter to his vandalism. This is completely unacceptable.

All what I have said can be confirmed by taking a look at his edits, his removal of sources and the lack of ANY sources at all in the false information (written by Iranian nationalists) that he is desperate to keep on those pages I have highlighted. A information that conflicts with sourced Misplaced Pages articles on the same manner and reality. I am willing to prove (with sources) that his claims are false and unfounded. The fact that he provides no sources at all should tell everything. Other users are also complaining about him.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. The both of you editing from IPs: knock it off. Your edit summaries are swarming with personal attacks. Consider this your one and only warning regarding violations of the no personal attacks policy. I have reverted Greater Iran and Iran–Iraq relations to the state they were in before the edit-warring started and semi-protected them both for a month. Persian people has also been reverted to a pre-edit-war state but has not been protected - yet - as it isn't as bad - yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Also, both IP editors are way past WP:3RR, on two different articles to boot, but since the semiprotection has stopped them from editing the articles they were edit-warring on, I'm not sure a block would be preventitive. Any other admin may block for the 3RR violation though without any objection from me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranshahr's vandalism

Dear Misplaced Pages. I am Mtheory1, and I have been making little edits to wikipedia time and again to fix this issue of the middle east. First off, to a lot of Iranians (I am one), this word is extremely eurocentric and rude, and Iranian culture is not the quintessential middle eastern culture. We are Asians. We have always been aligned with the cultures of the east and many scholarly reports online agree to where Iran lies geographically, politically, and socially: South Asia. The United Nations has written a "geoscheme" that is also conveniently located on Misplaced Pages titled United Nations geoscheme for Asia, where you will note Iran is under "South Asia" (google the geoscheme and you can verify). Two wikipedians, and only these two, continually accuse me of vandalism when I am simply trying to rid all articles associated with Iran on this website of middle east and give the truth to great people who use this useful website and hope for un-biased, truthful information. User Iranshahr (see her/his vandalism in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and user "ordibehesht" User talk:اردیبهشت have carried out a clear campaign to place Iran entirely in West Asia, when this, my friends, is only partly accurate. Iran is a great nation with ties all the way from the western borders of Turkey to China, and Iran is considered a tripoint of Asia culturally and genetically (with Iranian "peoples" stemming all the way from Iraq-West Asia, N India and Pakistan-S Asia, and Central Asia-all of the "stans.") I am a scholar in this field (Iranology), and I have been pushed by my Iranian community to put an end to this confusion. I may be new to Misplaced Pages, but not to the knowledge of my country. This website is merely a conduit of information. The people need to know that Iran is not middle eastern, but furthermore, is in three parts of Asia. In this regard, they know how large the culture of this country is. Iran transcends three (even all) parts of Asia in some way shape and form. WIkipedia's own Geoscheme verifies what I have been constantly saying, where Iran is (South Asia), and almost EVERY cultural, economic, political, historical, genetic article on WIkipedia verify Iran's close ties with the Eastern steppes of Asia, rather than the West. Iran is even in the process of gaining member status in the SAARC (South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation, where they are now an observer) The two aforementioned users are forcing Iran to be Arab or West Asian, when this is simply not entirely the case. Iran must be recognized ENTIRELY. Not given ONE label mis-appropriately applied label to all of its people for the world to see. I will try to (again) revise my work to the additions I have made (not vandalism), work that simply tells people of our culture, and brings light to where we are. Iranians are Asian, particularly South Asian. And proudly so. I hope the administrators can help me help Misplaced Pages understand our frustrations, and I hope edit wars don't sprout from this issue. Thank you for your time. You are all doing a wonderful service to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To the majority of the world, Iran is a middle eastern country, and the majority of sources (I believe) refer to it as such as well. It doesn't matter that it's, in your words, "eurocentric and rude"; Misplaced Pages is not censored. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for "the truth", nor is it a place to right great wrongs; Misplaced Pages must only include that with is verifiable, even if what is verifiable isn't what's "true". Also WP:BOOMERANG may be of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it not verifiable that Iran is South Asian? All I am saying is that it should also be deemed S Asian. I don't care if someone calls it "middle eastern," but regardless of what I said (maybe I went too far), Iran is still in SOuth Asia. Look at WIkipedia's own articles!! You included a link pertaining to "verifiability," when in that article of WIkipedia it stated that articles of the website must be verified by multiple (or at least one) source. Is not Iran South (and Western and Central) Asian by MANY sources? Mtheory1 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is verifiable that whether to include Iran in South Asia is not agreed. For example, the World Bank does not include it. The United Nations geographical region classification does not include it. The Hirschmann-Herfindahl Index of United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific does not include it. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation does not include it. But the United Nations Population Information Network does include it.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that so-called "European" culture was invented in Mesopotamia and Western Iran. This is particularly important with respect of religion. Religions originating in this culture tend to focus on the relationship between God and man - you will recognise this in Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and the early religions of the Middle East and Europe. Religions originating in India and China tend to focus on transcending thought, imaging, etc. They come from a quite different non-Mesopotamian-Iranian culture.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely confused. What is verifiability? How do we determine one source over the other? That is not what I am doing. I am not removing information from Iranian articles, I am simple supplanting them with facts that common (intelligent) people (must) know. I can't even believe I am arguing this; Iran is in SOuth Asia! Look at a map! This is not even an issue of verifiability. This is a huge misunderstanding. Iran is in multiple parts of Asia (as an Asian country) and some institutions include it in West, Central (the NE provinces) or South Asia depending on the scenario of the data collection. Is it wrong to say Iran is in one part of Asia AND another? No. Is it ridiculous to say Iran is only in ONE PART OF ASIA (JUST WEST)? Absolutely. Mtheory1 (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ANI is not the right place to resolve this? It is a content dispute. There is no one right answer. The article talk page is a better place. Please try not to be dogmatic or nationalistic. Maybe if you read more widely you would see that there are other points of view, and that some of these have merit.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, you are right ] . I will. Thanks for telling me, I get a little worked up about this. Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mtheory1

Block this user please. פארוק (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Please block this user. He/she has no mandate to remove Iran from the Middle East and place it in South Asia, which frankly, is just wrong. Iran is geographically a part of West Asia, and politically, a part of the Middle East. Culturally and historically, Iran's orientation has always been towards it West and to its North, never towards its east (South Asia / Indian subcontinent). اردیبهشت (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(split off new subsection) "

I am not doing anything wrong. I am only adding the informations that we have on Misplaced Pages. There are conflicts within the webpage. That's all I am doing, not tryng to fight anyone. Mtheory1 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion by User talk:216.81.94.68 using User talk:72.196.235.207

User talk:216.81.94.68 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. They appear to now be editing as User talk:72.196.235.207 based on edit history, location in Virginia, and spelling of "referances". 72Dino (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you open up an SPI? Did you notify the ip user? That being said, it certainly looks like a WP:DUCK Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/216.81.94.68/Archive was just archived. And I notified the IP user. 72Dino (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You should reopen the case by using 216 as the sockmaster and the add 72 as a new sock. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the SPI process to be confusing and burdensome. It may be easier to let a sock run rampant. It also took a week to be addressed, so lots of damage is done in that timeframe. 72Dino (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it tommorow. On an unrelated note, as a US taxpayer I'm not thrilled with the idea of government employees using taxpayer resources to edit Misplaced Pages. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly suggest CheckUser also screen that IP and the rest of its subnet range against user Ziggypowe. FYI, I have not templated that user. Belchfire-TALK 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block him .פארוק (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing an SPI on IP's is a total waste of time, because checkusers won't do anything about it. Just block the sucker and, if necessary, semi-protect any pages he's attacking. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspected mass copyright violations by User:Pedrocampelo

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

On June 4, I tagged Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres for a suspected copyright violation, reported the issue, and notified User:Pedrocampelo, the editor responsible for the edit. In my report, I explained that I needed clarification on whether or not this issue was, in fact, a copyright violation because I observed the same issue in at least 46 different Olympic articles. Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2012 June 4 was eventually closed without response from Pedrocampelo or the larger issue of suspected mass copyright violations being addressed. Given that the affected articles are likely to start receiving heavy amounts of traffic during the ongoing Olympics, I am seeking help on what, if anything, should be done on my part or that of anyone else. Perhaps I am jumping the gun in that it appears as though administrator User:ErikHaugen recently notified Pedrocampelo of a possible issue, too, and has asked him to revisit the articles he has edited. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would be OK with closing this report since the issue has now been listed at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations#Pedrocampelo. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

long term pattern of obstructions by In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An earlier ANI notice about this editor's behavior in May (see: ), went without any comment from an admin, and disappeared in the archives after @IIO laid low for a few days.

That was surprising, since several editors confirmed the problems, supported with multiple diffs, including:

• repeated personal comments and accusations of other editors, and typecasting them as "tennis-editors"
• repeated failure to AGF, and warned twice for it on his Talk page
• failure to engage in discussion and a general pattern of stonewalling in discussions related to diacritics, warned for stonewalling
• endless rehashing of the same arguments and questions, even after they have been addressed, thus filling up RfC or RM discussion, making them an endless read for the closing admins
• misrepresenting other editor's words, and repeatedly warned for it
• starting new sections in what is an ongoing discussion, and repeatedly warned for it
• moving warning templates given on his UserTalk into the discussion Talk of wp guidelines, thus obstructing the normal flow once again
• ...

Coming back from a wikibreak I can only notice that @IIO's "style" of participation is continuing in the same vein.

• After answering his questions, like I do here , he continues to rehash the same question over and over in his subsequent comments: and and again and again and again and again
• Meanwhile he has also taken the liberty to change one of my comments, in a way that misrepresents my words:
• He repeatedly negates policy based questions asked to him, and if he does address them his comments are usually missing the point, here is and example:
• He often tries to digress away from the questions on the table, usually by starting to talk about WP:TENNISNAMES, an essay he seems to have become obsessed with. E.g.

I don't think this "style" of editing can be seen as congruent with engaging in concensus building. Rather his edits seem to be geared towards wearing down other editors by refusal to get the point, mixed with all kind of other obstructions and distractions. This cannot be accidental mistakes if they continue over such a long time, and always seem to be directed at a "chosen few" of editors. I hope some uninvolved admin can take a better look at this. If this is the wrong forum for this type of complaint, then let me know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all.

This relates to English-names-for-foreigners again, specifically WP:TENNISNAMES RfC Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than an uninvolved admin, why not refer the matter to admin Sandstein who closed WP:TENNISNAMES and/or admin Joe Decker who has set up Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies - the new RfC that MakeSense64 is complaining about and knows the context? The new RfC was a response to a particular type of lede edit out of line with en.wp norms for bios on the François Mitterand (English Francois Mitterand) was the 21st President of the French Republic.." model - counter to the François Mitterand lede example in Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I'm sure Joe would be a more neutral commentator than myself.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that MakeSense64 accuses somebody else of being hung up on User:MakeSense64/Tennis names. Have a look at the page history. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not here to discuss content, but IIO's editing behavior. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Editors should come here with clean hands. AN/I threads naturally explore closely related areas; I've seen a few editors say something like "I started the thread about OtherEditor, so we must discuss OtherEditor, not me" but they still get hit by a boomerang. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? Is it now a crime on wp to write essays? Or is it not allowed to restore the contents of it after an editor named Bobrayner has removed most of them while I was on a wikibreak? Admins are more than welcome to look into my editing. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened this after some non-admin tried to close this. Why call it administrator's noticeboard and then let anybody close complaints? I have not seen anything addressed here. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. Besides the fact that you're in WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI - and the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing (which often leads to issues for you instead), you're better to allow this to close before such negatives occur. Non-admins may close these if indeed no action will obviously come from them dangerouspanda 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that changing another editor's words qualifies as an "incident". And WP:DE, which describes IIO's editing style quite well, advises to go to ANI, when other ways have failed. Well, here I am. You talk about "the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing".. On what is that contention based, since no diffs have been given for any example, just insinuations by Bobrayner..

If IIO's editing is deemed OK, then can I also get a license to change other people's comments, repeat questions ad nauseam after they have been addressed, and so on?? That would be interesting to know.

Anyway, to see a well documented complaint being brushed under the carpet so easily for the second time, can only lead editors to the conclusion that wp has become an old boys club. This complaint has only been open for half a day, and already a non-admin is on the ball to close it without any explanation. That looks strange to put it mildly. To ask for admin closure on the admin's noticeboard is only reasonable. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that closure is premature; although you may wish it otherwise as people dig into this and see you're making a fuss over a content dispute. NACs, here and other places, need to be uncontroversial or otherwise reflect some obvious consensus, or be ministerial in nature. That said, I took a look at some of your specific complaints.

1) Changing someone else's talk page comments, even to correct spelling, is almost never acceptable (the only exception may be bad formatting that messes up the page or makes things difficult to read). So adding words to your comment is unacceptable. However nobody's getting blocked for a one-off example of that. And it's not as though he was actively trying to misrepresent your point with that edit either.

2) You're complaining about his style in answering questions... why do you think this is an ANI issue? I didn't dig very deep into your underlying debate, but these responses seem to respond to the conversation, and are aren't offensive in tone.

I have to agree with EatsShootsandLeaves. There's 0 here for ANI to do. Just because you're deadlocked on some content or policy debate is not license to run to ANI to have somebody else win an argument for you. This is the consensus process and it's not always smooth. That's part of how it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to close. In my opinion, this has become an obsessive vendetta by MakeSense64, and according to his talk page, it has been going on for over two months. I believe that the two editors should stay away from each other and refrain from commenting about each other or interacting together. MakeSense64 is pissed off, and his anger is clouding his judgment. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, well at least Shadowjams aknowledges it was premature to close this, so let me clarify a few things.

1)IIO adding words to my comments was not merely adding words, he was adding a vote (in bold) in front of my comment. I would think that posting a vote for somebody else is worse than just changing a few words in his comment. Secondly, he was definitely misrepresenting my point with the vote he added, because I didn't oppose adding examples. If you read the section in question, which is rather short Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Specific_proposal_1.1_1.2_1.3, then you can see that I was not against adding examples, I simply pointed out that adding examples would be premature and would logically depend on the outcome of the RfC. If that's not obvious then what is?

2)This is not a one-off example, and that's why I pointed to the broader context and to an earlier ANI in which we see an ongoing chain of "irregularities", for which IIO seems to take no responsibility. The earlier case was not filed by me, but by an admin and another admin came in to confirm that the case should be looked into. But that didn't happen. If the uninvolved admins at ANI are only able to look into clear-cut cases about a single incident, and not into more complex ones with incidents spread out over a longer period of time, then who is able to look into them and where?

WP:DE describes the problem of ongoing obstructions over a long period of time, but says very little about where to go with such cases. How many diffs of different "irregularities" does it take before admins can see a pattern of obstructions that have nothing to do with content?

When I report a long list of edits (with diffs) that are not about content, a list of irregularities/mistakes that mysteriously always seem to befall sections that I have started or comments that I have given, then it is put away as "part of how it goes". That's convenient. My merely reporting them here is seen as an obsessive vendetta, without any evidence. Has IIO produced even a single diff where I am changing his words, accusing him of edit-warring, cutting up his comments, misrepresenting his words, repeating questions after they have been addressed, and so on...? Before I am accused of doing just the same I would expect to see diffs.

I am not angry or clouded, I have long learned to expect no better on WP. If anything is galling then it is admin's apparent inability or unwillingness to look into this kind of cases, rather than IIO's "annoyances" themselves. It may be more simple to handle clear-cut 3RR cases and so. But it is the longer term and thus more difficult to detect "mild abuses" by "experienced" editors that are more damaging to wp, because that drives good faith editors away.

If IIO's series of edits is deemed OK, then it sends a clear signal to me and other editors that this type of editing is normal "part of how it goes" when you have a content or policy dispute. That will be good to know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that this dispute is a huge misunderstanding between the two of you. Is it too much to ask you to take a break from dispute mode and let things cool off for a bit? Maybe when you're calm, you can approach In ictu oculi and try to smooth things out. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What is there to "misunderstand" about somebody worming a vote into my comment? What is there to misunderstand about an editor accusing me of edit-warring without bringing any evidence or diff for it? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who frequently resorts to making personal comments on Talk pages? What is there to misunderstand about an editor who continues to rehash questions that have been addressed?... do I need to continue?

Why do you try to brush this under the carpet as a "misunderstanding"? I have been avoiding him for months. I could have gone to vote or comment in all the RM he has started, but I have not bothered to do so. But whenever I made a comment somewhere, he is always right there to bury it under a truckload of (mostly irrelevant or just plain repetitive) text. Can't you see the difference? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, give us a diff to the most recent thing that happened. One thing only. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ask for the most recent thing, then it is probably this one: MakeSense64 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ram Kishore Shukla

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

I've held off reporting this for a long time, but this morning's events have finally convinced me that this needs looking at from an administrative capacity.

User:Ballisticizer, aka User:Alcides86, aka User:RKS4444 (admission of multiple accounts here) has been the main contributor to this article, and has demonstrated serious COMPETENCE and COI problems throughout its history. The text of the article has been substantially altered to remove a potential copyright violation (see discussion here, in which Ballisticizer claims to have faked the copied source (no evidence has been produced either way)); this morning I encountered the Alcides86 account readding some of the potentially non-free content, and after placing this warning, received this response. See also this discussion, which resulted in the removal of most of the article's images. It seems to me that this user is failing or refusing to get the point, and much as I hate to deeal with comparatively new users this way, I see a block under WP:COMPETENCE as the only productive way forwards. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All notified Yunshui 雲‍水 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected administrators, i just want to say that i did all those mistakes in unawareness of Misplaced Pages guidelines, but when i learnt them it was late it seems, the article hosted at docstoc.com was uploaded by me only by copying Misplaced Pages text, it was released under to use it as a source, but later when whole article got shortened, i removed the the document from docstoc.com, when Yunshui told me how to use books to cite sources, i did not find any problem to improve the article. This is india i live in if i was familiar to all these things, what would be the problem. Please understand, i never kept my foot apart from Ram Kishore Shukla (my maternal grand father). Thank you --Alcides86 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User has indicated here his intent to restrict himself to one account and abide by policy; I'm inclined to AGF and withdraw my block request, but would nevertheless appreciate some more input from other admins. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the details, I would trust your handling as you are most familiar. Blocks are cheap and be handed out if needed at a later date. We are here to solve problems, after all, and looks like you already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Is stalking my edits and has refused to stop. He has now taken to removing a perfectly reasonable POV tag which I has just added to the article for no reason other than to piss me off. He has never edited this article, nor discussed on the talk page were there is a discussion over the articles neutrality I want an interaction ban with this guy, I have no need of another stalker. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, the discussion should continue on the article talk page, not here. The tag should be placed to start discussion, but adding it during a discussion is pointy at the very least as is no more than rebelling about the current discussion. It is an act of defiance, that others do not agree with your perspective. As for stalking, if an editor is known to have problems in their edits or behavior, it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to monitor their edits for problems, with the goal being to head off problems before they become too large and to provide guidance. I suggest you drop the stick and keep working on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that discretionary sanctions have been applied by ArbCom via this motion, you will find that the editing of all seven named parties will be subject to scrutiny by admins and other editors at all times, given the history involved. Of course, if the previous issues continue to recur, this will mean that topic bans and/or blocks can be applied at any time to prevent disruption. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, the reason he is stalking me is because we had a disagreement on the Massoud article, you know the one were he caused so much trouble over an image. Then after that he began to stalk me. He has called for me to be banned form editing and is hardly a neutral party. I added the tag after the content which I had added after the RFC concluded was removed twice. I will not have this guy stalk me leaving snarky comments all the time. I want it stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The user who filed this report is blanking my additions to Rape in India and edit warring while accusing me of sockery please advice me on what to do and can someone put his paranoia to rest 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, quit reverting here, it is bordering on edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• This IP is Nangparbat. I am fed up of having to revert him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He is convinced that I am sort of a bloody sock please do something! 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I endorse your sock block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked both Darkness Shines and the IP for a good couple of days because of the edit warring on Rape in India. Feel free to either unblock, or make the blocks longer if one feels that is needed. Edit warring is certainly not going to solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is Quacking with a megaphone that he is the banned User:Nangparbat who has been highy disruptive and has been using multiple IPs and accounts to harass and indulge in Disruptive editing. Admins Elockid and Elen of the roads had been playing whack a mole with his socks since long. Due to the above block on Darkness Shines, it seems that after numerous efforts finally this time Nangparbat has succeeded in getting DS blocked. This is clearly an inappropriate blocks as reverting socks is exempted from WP:3RR . . --DBigXray 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<comment removed>That IP is clearly Nangparbat; DS should be unblocked. (part of my comment removed, as it might ironically be considered a form of stalking Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will have to admit that DS does know that sock well. Reverting an unproven sock is always with risk, and the blocking admin might take a look at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Beestra is ok with an unblock, so I have done so. Reverting not just a sock, but the sock of a banned editor, should not be liable to any sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a side note, DS self imposed a 1RR for a month at this discussion to avoid a block which he violated here: (new) (1st rv) (tag) (2nd rv; slightly different tag to game 1RR). His edits were reverted by FP so I don't have much problem, but bringing the EW into notice since I am active on the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

...active on the article and also active in aggressive Block shopping against users whom you share content dispute with. adding the last part for clarity--DBigXray 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

TG I have not broken 1RR at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked Regents Park who is an entirely neutral admin to monitor my edits, as such FPaS will not longer need to stalk me. Please let him know it is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The diffs above clearly shows Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise having disputes with Darkness Shines. Through his comments at Arbcom notice and other places Fut perf has displayed having strong feelings against DS. As such he is clearly WP:INVOLVED and should refrain form take any action in this area from his admin capacity so as not to appear biased. From Futperf's talk page we know that there will not be any good faith assumption towards DS. So any furthur hounding by an admin having bad faith will only lead to more WP:DRAMA and reports with cherry picked diffs. Regentspark has already accepted that he will be looking into his edits and he is a neutral admin in this as far as I have seen. --DBigXray 09:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

70.118.102.247

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

Can someone enforce WP:ARBMAC+WP:3RR at 70.118.102.247 (talk · contribs), please, for edit warring at Yugoslav Wars? I'm "involved" so I want to avoid any allegation of impropriety; I've already warned them, and then they reverted that. D'oh. --Joy (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

IP editor 173.174.159.84 seems intent of violating WP:MOSFLAG by continually adding flag icons into boxing article infoboxes. They have already had three warnings from me and Tigerboy1966 in regards to this issue. On the 25th July in the third warning i notified them that it was a last warning which they ignored several times on the 27th July: , , , .

Mabuska 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done Blocked for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully that will get this editor's attention. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wingtipvortex / MlM42 /Mir

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

Wingtipvortex (talk · contribs)

Mlm42 (talk · contribs)

Mir Almaat 1 S1 (talk · contribs)

Accounts(s) with one incredibly obscure editing fetish, not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template, and it's preservation. Notified. Due to popular ongoing demand on the talkpage of WDGraham (talk · contribs) after a long discussion on my own talkpage, which followed a long discussion on wikiproject spaceflight and a SPI about the Mir account, here is what he wanted, a thread at ANI where hopefully, someone will pop up with a fast block for me, and wouldn't I love the peace and quiet to leave all of this bickering arguing crap behind and work on my other projects. Hoo yeah. Penyulap ☏ 21:24, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• What editing fetish? A quick glance over Wingtipvortex's latest edits, for example, doesn't show me anything that stands out as "fetish"y, in either the literal or metaphorical sense. What do you feel is the problem there? And what does "not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template" mean? Could you give us a little more clarification to work with here? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a frivolous thread. See also the section below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the timestamp was updated after I notified on all three talkpages. Penyulap ☏ 21:28, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The issue is three years old, which predates my own editing on wikipedia, it is also somewhat up to date, with two editors very upset on the ISS talkpage more recently, one describing two others as dumbassess over the issue, and another describing the mess caused three years ago as 'a monument to the failure of the wiki process' The issue is not the variant itself, but the state of the article prior to the insertion of an ENG:VAR template. A poll was conducted, resulting in no consensus, and the straw poll was tied up back to front as a straw man, in the favour of WDGraham who did it, and linked to 'straw man' inside the poll discussion, so he knew what he did. MlM42 along with WDGraham relentlessly defend British in the talkpage, and I too either would like British or to abstain. The other editors are upset because the poll was tied up back to front. A template on the page claims there is a consensus, and that the matter has been settled. Penyulap ☏ 21:35, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

MlM42, first used Mir as pure harassment, that is, as a fixation account. WP:HA describes a number of different ways that a user may be harassed, this is one of the more exotic ways in which the purpose of an account focuses on a single user. 1/5 of the accounts 1,000 edits were to my own userpage, the rest consisted of asking stupid questions at the teahouse until they suspected a sock and collapsed his inane questions, he reviewed an admin and later asked the admin if he thought I should be sanctioned. After making it somewhat clear to him the first time, he dumped the Mir account for practical purposes and switched to a higher quality sock account he originally intended to protect his privacy as well as use probably as a sock as well, basically two birds one stone. Both accounts are British Columbia, and Mir as I stated here at ANI 6 weeks ago, although he makes claims of belonging to a minority outside WP:BIAS, only ever exhibits British/American cultural traits and editing patterns, as well as language.

You shall find denials of socking on each talkpage, and the latest on my own talkpage, where he states that the wingtip account is his only account on wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 21:42, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap

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

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

Penyulap has kept a streak of user attacks for a while. Today was my turn on his list apparently. He is way out of hand attacking editors, and I request an indef block on his account.

My discussion with him today can be found here. This came as a result of a comment he left in User:Craigboy's talk page here, where it appears he accused me of Sockpuppeting.

I had suspected something when he left this comment on my talk page.

Now a bit of history on Penyulap. He has been a significantly disruptive editor on Wikiproject spaceflight. A very lengthy discussion took place in the project's talk page regarding him. I was his greatest supporter and defender in that conversation. He now accuses me of being another editor playing Good Hand Bad Hand.

He has a history of intimidating users he disagrees with by threatening them with WP:SPI, such as with User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 here and with User:Mlm42 here (coincidentally, a similar comment to what he left on my talk page).

His RFA shows him to be a highly disruptive editor, even claiming he vandalizes with several undetectable sockpuppets himself. He is set on proving the SPI process is broken, see here.

I was going to let him go and walk away, until he claimed an admission of guilt from my part.

He has even started ANI against me, User:WDGraham and others while I type this up, after threatening us with ANI here. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pelyulap's behavior in recent weeks has been significantly disruptive in a number of places. Could an uninvolved administrator with some extra time tonight please carefully evaluate what action, if any, needs to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, could you run check user on me and the three other editors he accuses me of being to dispel that idea? --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been nearly enough evidence presented here to warrant a checkuser, even at the request of one of the accused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Largely echoing NYB's sentiment here. I've been keeping half an eye on the situation with Penyulap since his aborted RFA (linked above by Wingtipvortex), and while there's occasional article work, there a lot more snarling, biting others, and generally being extremely difficult to work with - and that's when he's not talking about his vandal socks or how he's here to prove some sort of point. I see very little that's constructive coming out of Penyulap these days, and am inclined to think that a block may be the only solution to the disruption at this point, especially since even users who have been working hard to help him fit in with our policies are now being rebuffed (section link, most relevant content is toward the bottom of the section). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't seem logical to ask twice for the same CU. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved but I left a warning to Penyulap following what can be charitably described as tendentious editing on Beatles related articles. If the behavior doesn't abate or change I'd recommend a block. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It was welcome advice. Penyulap ☏ 21:52, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I see some assumptions of bad faith and possibly baseless allegations in the example discussions linked in the original complaint (don't know all the background, nor do I care to), but nothing that requires a block yet, in my opinion. I think Penyulap should be warned to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry and rather take things through the right channels at SPI. If the accusations continue, then a block would be warranted. I also think that Penyulap's belief that he has some kind of superhuman ability (if he was serious when he said that) that allows him to "see clearly not only the person behind the keyboard and what machine they use, how they edit, what their cultural background..., but it also allows me to assess with precision their intentions as well" is potentially dangerous and should probably not be validated or encouraged by anyone. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairly stated, I'll take it to the right place. Penyulap ☏ 21:49, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict appears to have eaten this the first time) To address Scotty's feeling that this may not be a long-term thing, I present a linkdump of some of Penyulap's talk highlights for the past few days: people's comments about him are them making excuses Worm is incompetent, not interesting in improving himself it's everybody else's fault personal attacks more personal attacks using "unorthodox" methods to bring GabeMC in line "my calls are always good", "I haven't made any mild or serious misjudgements yet", "The secret to being an insufferable smart ass like me who is always right is to admit instantly, sincerely and comprehensively the moment you realise it. " previous block was for "nothing in particular" Pesky asks him to try to make himself more understandable, his answer is "no". People are taking process too seriously, he prefers the socks. Now, mind you, these are all things that were said within the last week, and they're far from everything problematic from those days. The diffs speak for themselves, my short summaries (except the quotes, which are direct) are just that, my interpretations of what was said, so please view the diffs for actual content. I didn't bother to go further back, but these are generally representative of how Penyulap interacts with other editors here. There's the sock accusations...and then there's everything else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say that the diffs above demonstrate that this is more than just an isolated incident, and therefore a block might be warranted if there is consensus for it here. -Scottywong| speak _ 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap has been bothering and attacking me for over three weeks now almost non-stop. Some admin intervention is overdue, as this user appears to be having an emotional problem which they are taking out on other editors. FTR, I wholeheartedly support a block or a ban of somekind. ~ GabeMc 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm extremely allergic to drama, but I guess I should comment. I have to say that I've also noticed disruptive behavior on Penyulap's part in recent weeks. He took an interest in the Beatles capitalisation issue earlier this month, and that seems to have inspired highly irrational behavior on his part in related areas (this, as one example). I'm not definitively in favor of a block or anything at this point, as he has been a valuable contributor in multiple areas, but (just an observation) it looks like things involving him have gotten out of hand more than just once. Evanh2008 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• I came very close to starting an ANI on penyulap regarding harssment concerns, brought to me by another editor who Penyulap had decided to "correct" by effectively following him around. I have warned him three times in the past fortnight regardimg harssment and how accusations of harssment without evidence is a personal attack. However, I would consider myself involved though as some of his comments towards me on his talk page have been beyond the pale. I'll provide some diffs tomorrow, am on my phone at the moment. Worm(talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He would refer to a section here and he later agreed to give me some space Penyulap ☏ 22:03, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? He didn't agree to give you some space. He stated that he would no longer be interacting with you because your behavior and the things you said about him were appalling. Your behavior has been completely unacceptable and I am certain you would have never said those things except behind a wall of anonymity. Be certain that you do not deserve the kind manner in which people have treated you here and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken. You are lucky that you are not treated the way you treat others. Ryan Vesey 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, but if you look at the discussion at WikiProject Spaceflight, it seems to me that there are very few active editors left in the WikiProject who aren't in some kind of dispute with him. I haven't looked at every one of them - I'll post something about the dispute I am involved in with him shortly as I need some time to compile some links, but just from that discussion and his talk page, I think it is clear that he gets into more disputes than could be expected of the average editor. He doesn't listen to other people, and if just dismisses their concerns as he feels that they are the ones who have problems - in his RfA he dismissed people raising concerns about his conduct as being "bully tactics", and I'm fairly sure that his accusations against Mlm, and the earlier one against Mir, are just intended to intimidate them as they have spoken out against him. This has been going on for a long time now, and I think he has become too disruptive to ignore. --W. D. Graham 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just to give a bit of background on one issue, I am involved, along with a number of other editors (primarily SalopianJames (talk · contribs), Navy blue84 (talk · contribs), Ckatz (talk · contribs) and Mlm42), in a long-running dispute around the dialect the article International Space Station should be written in. The first dialect used was British English, however American English was later introduced, with both dialects remaining in use until James standardised it during one of several FACs around three or four years ago. I can't remember if there was a discussion or if James was just being bold (I seem to recall a discussion, but it was so long ago I can't find it, so I'd be prepared to accept that my memory may not be flawless), however in either case the change stuck for a few months, until an RfC was held on whether the article should be changed to American English. This found no consensus, and while with hindsight I should not have closed it as an involved editor, I cannot see any way that it would have found consensus to change the article. During the next couple of years there were one or two further discussions started by various editors, but no consensus was found. Last June, Penyulap tried to start a simple majority poll on the issue, and while a few objections were raised to discussing this for the third or fourth time in two years, the discussion was allowed to run its course and again found no consensus. Penyulap was subsequently topic banned for another dispute, but when that ban expired, he started the discussion again, and again it found no consensus, although he kept it alive for five months by just refusing to drop it. Two days after that thread was archived, he started the discussion again. He's also tried to raise it on my talk page, repeatedly on his own talk page often trying to bring it up in irrelevant discussions; he hijacked the discussion of his conduct at WT:SPACEFLIGHT to try and air it again. In the recent discussions, he's mostly been arguing from a starting point that because the RfC found no consensus the article should be changed "back" into American English (he ignores the fact that it was never in American English, either changing the subject or responding with an ad homeniem argument whenever this is pointed out). He claims that he doesn't actually care about the end result - from the discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT "that's not it at all. I don't care for the variant. I care for the solution to the monument and the jackass emotions...It's how you reach the decision that matters, not what the decision is." Aside from the forum/admin shopping, refusal to drop a matter that has been discussed to death, liberal use of ad homeniem arguments and borderline wikilawyering, he doesn't seem to understand that Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and has tied the project up for the last year discussing something that is essentially a matter of process, and the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. --W. D. Graham 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think an indefinite block if not a complete ban of Penyulap is necessary. I formed my opinion that a block of some sort might be needed (I have been concerned by Penyulap's disruption in the past month). Then I saw this comment

  How about this, Pesky you're not feeling well, considering the situation of your household, I'm not well considering I couldn't manage to stay awake today long enough to try for the second time to get to the doctor, because something about my thyroid? is not working. So how about worm packs up all this WP:ICANTHEARYOU when you say DESPISE. Stop his deliberately obtuse and stupid antics to provoke me, (actually is it deliberate or are you actually this dense? I DON'T CARE because you are not here to ask for help) asking 'I'm so stupid please explain how I got to be an admin and can lecture Mir on unwanted attention but I just can't help myself, I'm drawn back to everything Penyulap is doing because I am aware he DESPISES me and I just want to antagonise the situation because hey, he needs it, and I'll take advantage of Auntie Pesky as well while I'm at it, because with her son is in a life threatening situation, so she has nothing better to do than deal with Worms ICANTHEARYOU social problems.' Either send me your PAYPAL address and I'll send you some money for a therapist worm or take the hint and come back when Auntie Pesky says she is well enough to help you with your problems, keep at it, and I'll be asking for an interaction ban, on the grounds that YOU CANT HEAR ME and there is no hope for you ever growing out of this awkward stage your going through without community intervention. Ok pumpkin ? Penyulap ☏ 11:44, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  That comment is beyond anything one could accept from an editor and it certainly isn't uncommon for Penyulap to behave in a similar manner as seen here. I can dig through more diffs of disruption if people wish, but as far as I'm concerned the comment to Worm and Pesky was beyond what is necessary to block him. Ryan Vesey 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that after talking to Auntie Pesky in a manner she disagrees with, and considering the stress in RL and on wikipedia, that I shall focus on priority of health and take a break from wiki. (addressing this and the comment below) Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This current spat doesn't really matter, as an indef is overdue for past issues, such as the ISS discussion linked from a thread about a week ago. This is a disruptive, trolling participant with competency issues. BYE ~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I have to agree - Pen has, alas, long since worn out his welcome with long-term disruptive behavior and not listening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't well suited to discussion of long term behavior of an editor. WP:RFC/U should be the next step. Nobody Ent 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be true in many other circumstances, but in this instance, the issues raised are so numerous and serious that we probably need a concrete action coming out of this thread. (Plus, given Penyulap's comment just above that he needs to take some time away because of health and stress considerations, and assuming good faith with regard to it, I don't think that creating an RFC/U that would focus on criticizing Penyulap would be appropriate at this time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As Tom Morris said in Penyulap's RFA: when an admin or wannabe admin sees an editor being grossly incivil (even if they feel it justified in the circumstances), offering spelling and grammar advice as Penyulap did here cannot be considered anything other than trolling. In addition, it became apparent in this SPI case that here, Penyulap stated he had socks, undetectable by CU, which he used to vandalise Misplaced Pages, making an offer to reveal them. Here, I thought I had misread his comments, thinking they were meant sarcastically, but here he clarified that he wasn't being sarcastic. In other words, a blatant troll who admits vandalising with sockpuppets — if I wasn't a participant in that conversation, I would have indeffed him myself. WilliamH (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. If Penyulap is having personal difficulties then an extended RFC/U would be gratuitous and cruel, as several editors have expressed here that an indef block of this account is in order, and long overdue, why not serve both the community and Penyulap by making that break mandatory? Don't pass the buck, lets deal with this right here right now. ~ GabeMc 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal

There seems to be general agreement above that this much more than an isolated incident and that a block may be warranted, so let's make it official. This proposal is to block Penyulap for 1 week for disruptive behavior. If the harassment, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, or general incivility/disruption continue after the block, then any uninvolved admin can and should re-block for a longer period of time, including indef if deemed necessary. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as indef immediately instead of passing the buck for a week, per WilliamH's comments - an immediate indef is absolutely necessary. (And I'd do it myself except I, too, could be considered "involved" with regards to Pen) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 1 week. If and when Penyulap returns to editing, he needs to recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The vast majority of his contributions of late seem to do nothing of the sort. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, oppose 1-week length. A block is certainly called for here, but a week is so short as to be almost certainly useless. I would be much more inclined to support an indef block (under the classic definition - indefinite, not infinite. When Pen is back up to snuff and can engage with the community properly and without attacking others, an unblock can be discussed). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict x3) I'm thinking that indefinite is the correct block length here. Note: Not "indefinite" as in "forever," but "indefinite" as in "until Penyulap is able to provide evidence that he is ready to edit properly and stop the various types of disruptive behavior he's been engaging in." It's obvious that he needs time away from Misplaced Pages, perhaps as much for his own sake as for everyone else's, and it's not clear we can know at this point whether and when he'll be able to participate productively again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block as the originator of this complaint and per The Bushranger, Fluffernutter and Newyorkbrad. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an indefinite block. Unless can be convinced otherwise, no incentive to let this individual edit Misplaced Pages. (Edit conflict: per NYB, basically.) WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block for Penyulap per Bushranger, Newyorkbrad, Wingtipvortex and WilliamH. ~ GabeMc 23:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• indef, already said so above. why go through all this !voting? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Coren just beat me to the indef block. I thought I'd do it since I like Penyulap and wish to protect them against further piling on here. Take it easy Penyulp; you know about OFFER and all that. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More decisive

It seems clear that there is agreement that decisive action must be taken, and that Penyulap has been an extraordinarily disruptive element in very many venues for a long time. There are at least three entirely unrelated areas where I have seen him aggressively disrupt ongoing discussion and processes in the past week alone; he has been vicious towards an editor I have attempted to steer away from unrelated trouble, and he has involved himself in just about every process or project area of note in the past couple of weeks – unfailingly bringing all heat and no light.

I have not intervened in his misbehaviour before this point, so I cannot possibly be considered involved; except that he has unsuccessfully attempted to bait me into an overreaction during my handling of yet another incident unrelated to him where he simply butted in to – pardon my french – stir shit up.

The fact of the matter is, he is currently doing nothing but trolling and wilfully wasting the community's time. This discussion is understandable, but simply is yet another instance of his skill at causing strife. I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz.

I am blocking him indefinitely; he is clearly not here to work on an encyclopedia. Or if he is, he is incapable of understanding how to help rather than hinder. Either way, his participation is not useful, and no longer welcome. Any administrator may revert this block if they think it is out of line, or if they manage to negotiate some sort of behavioural compromise from him. Somehow, I doubt the former is plausible, and that the latter is productive. — Coren  23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, ya got this one right. Now go propose vacating the silly restriction on me per Brad's comment on my talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent review required potential suspicious editing

Can an administrator who is uninvolved please review the following article and report if they think there is anything suspicious.

• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Cla68 (talk) Ownership and unfounded clims
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert warring
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Revert-warring note

I am very suspicious that User:Cla68 has been so sweepingly defended by User:Dreadstar. The implication of the interpretation of the defending of Cla68 by Dreadstar is that if one user adds information which is not deemed warranted on multiple occasions in a short period and then takes issue with that information being removed they are justified in reporting this a revert warring even if the information is simply being removed as part of the usual WP:CYCLE. Sport and politics (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, all that happened here is that Dreadstar reviewed an open thread on the WQA board concerning Cla68's editing, disagreed with the complaint, and explained why. Unless I am missing something, I don't see what exactly is "suspicious" about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The nature of the reasoning given is such that it basically says everything Cla68 would want and the language used is similar to Cla68s and the interpretation of what revet warring is, is identical to that of Cla68. There has also been no reasoning given that Cla68 has complained only over their edits being modified or removed which shows that the Ownership being exhibited by Cla68 has been ignored which is again suspicious as a thorough and well thought through reading of the whole complaint would have addressed those concerns as well.Sport and politics (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The solution to this is that the WQA thread is still open, and other editors can chime in if they agree or disagree with Dreadstar's comments or yours. But your comments above carried the insinuation that there is some sort of sockpuppetry or improper off-wiki coordination or game-playing going on, and I see no evidence for that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well could a few users please review the open thread and make a comment and can a user review if the close of the Third linked discussion was proper by Dreadstar. Sport and politics (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sport and politics continues to remove well-sourced material from Olympics-related articles since the Wikiquette discussion began. Could an admin please intervene? It's not just my attempts to build the article that are being affected. A number of editors are having their contributions deleted by this editor. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article.Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring" - Is the content being removed vandalism or a BLP violation? If no, then if you remove something, it's restored, and then you remove it again, yes, you are indeed edit warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a case of Sport and politics removing the same material twice? I have not found it. - Fartherred (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the founding principle of Wikipeidia is to be a well written encyclopaedia. The content is put up it is removed if it s not noteworthy, relevant or poorly written or pushes one POV to an undue extent. It is not all edits this happens to. It only happens to the edits which are either poorly written, give undue weight to a single POV, irrelevant or not noteworthy. The content is then discussed. It is not removed put back removed put back etc. as youseem to be making out. The insinuation that it is wrong to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the article seems very very strange. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling a serious look at what Misplaced Pages is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Misplaced Pages Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't give deference to the editor who quotes the most policies or insists with the greatest volume that they are correct. Edit warring is edit warring is edit warring. The extremely narrow range of exceptions to the edit warring policy exists to prevent editors from simply screaming and reverting past one another, and encourage them to actually talk about the issues. Behavioral issues aside, you are not going to find a free pass here to keep reverting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am absolutely flabbergasted by that. The implications of that means that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be edited by the same editor more than three times in 24 hours if that editor is removing content which is irrelevant, POV pushing, lacking in noteworthiness, written incomprehensibly or is even if the removal/modification is done so to maintain the quality of the article. There has to be some level of Common Sense employed here or genuine good faith editing to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages will be stifled as is being clearly demonstrated here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this very simple one line policy comes in here as this interpretation of the revert rule is damaging to Misplaced Pages for the above mentioned reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You've been here for like 3 weeks and you declare yourself some kind of expert on all things wikipedia... and you're calling someone else suspicious? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yup. This is ridiculous. Citing WP:IAR to justify edit warring if the person involved claims to be doing so "to maintain the quality of the article"? On that basis, we might as well scrap the rules against edit warring entirely. 'Common sense' says we don't suddenly ditch long-standing policy on the basis of what one new contributor says... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • All I have done is read up on what Misplaced Pages policies are and when something looked suspicious to me I simply said so. I guess I have learnt the the editing of Misplaced Pages is very very unusual. Sport and politics (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• When someone adds cited information to the Olympics controversy article that isn't obvious vandalism or a violation of the BLP policy and you disagree with it, instead of reverting it, start a discussion on the talk page and give the reasons why you don't think it belongs in the article, then allow some time for other editors to respond. If you will do this, then things should work a lot better with building that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that all of the edits I have made have been done in good faith to maintain the quality of the article in question. What is being missed is the fact that I have edited in good faith and another user has claimed bad faith. The editing I have made has been accompanied by long and plentiful discussions on the topic. It is amazing to me that such a policy can exist which takes good faith edits and labels them as out of order, when all that is trying to be done is to maintain the quality of the article in question. You are going about Bold Revert Discuss as Bold Discuss Revert which is just silly. Sport and politics (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• "he editing of Misplaced Pages is very very unusual" - quite possibly so - but the policies and guidelines we have are part of the reason Misplaced Pages works. It may not seem logical, or even rational sometimes, but we've succeeded in getting this far by discussing policy, trying it out, and amending it as necessary (by consensus) if there are problems, one of the guidelines is WP:AGF - and perhaps you should take from that the idea that having 'suspicions' about editors isn't necessarily helpful - or at least, telling people you do without a darned good reason, isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Written Misplaced Pages policies are incoherent, incomplete, and inconsistently enforced; so yes, you're absolutely correct Misplaced Pages editing is unusual (insane). You're much better off not worrying about all the WP:this and WP:that stuff and learning the pillars really well. Go slow, be nice and use article talk pages to build consensus rather than relying on what the policies say. Nobody Ent 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to recall which indef'd user it was that refused to indent properly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't remember the name either, but there was at least one AN/I thread, so you could always search the archives for "indent." - Jorgath (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, it seems to be picking up that "indent" template, so it would be a needle in a haystack. But if he's not on the up-and-up, we'll find out soon enough. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it was one of these with that MO:
          • Anglo Pyramidologist
          • Danceking5
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think it was either of those that I was thinking of. Happened in the last 3 months, which excludes Pyramidologist, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Danceking either. The one I'm thinking of was blocked for refusing to sign and doing that, IIRC. - Jorgath (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're probably remembering Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Refusal to indent as intentional disruption. And look! We have asterisk keys on our keyboards. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's the one I was remembering, at least. - Jorgath (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion to avoid violating the 3 revert limit rule is to save up all those bad edits that need to be removed and reverting them all in one edit 9 hours after your last edit. Who has the right idea about what an article should be and what constitutes a good edit? Discuss it, respectfully. Sometimes one does not get one's own way with an article, but it is best not to take article content disputes to ANI. - Fartherred (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

اردیبهشت

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

اردیبهشت (talk · contribs) is annoyingly trying to force racist concepts to a purely linguistic classification system (i. e. that people with Mongolid physical features cannot be an Iranian people even if their first language has been Iranian for decades and centuries). Hence also his edit in Hazara people where he has violated WP:3RR. He continues this unencyclopedic and un-scholarly behavior also in Iranian peoples and elsewhere. To keep it short: what he says is like claiming that the Turkish people are not a Turkic people, because they do not have Mongolid physical features like the ancient Turks, despite speaking a Turkic language for at lest 400 years. --Lysozym (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: he has violated 3RR in Iranian cuisine as well. --Lysozym (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Also, please note that you are required to notify anyone that you are reporting at ANI. -Scottywong| communicate _ 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussions to be closed

For the attention of any administrator: there are three pending requests for closure of a content discussion. AGK 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by User:DreamMcQueen after a 96 Hour Block

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

• DreamMcQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Related ANI Thread #1
• Related ANI Thread #2

After coming off a 96 hour block (by User:Toddst1), User:DreamMcQueen has gone back to the same behavior that has gotten him blocked the past two times, "Disruptive editing: specifically edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE". As evidenced by the user's edits on July 30, edit wars on multiple pages continue after the most recent block. I have notified the blocking editor of this, but he seems to be offline for the evening. The unblock request of the previous block shows the user just doesn't "get it" and this talk page post seems to indicate he is here to force some kind of change (regardless of consensus or whatever).

The behavior of DreamMcQueen is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping after two blocks, now three ANI threads, numerous warnings and several admins saying to stop. As such, I am requesting admin assistance in this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread, as has the blocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my defense: I am not vandalizing, I am not practicing incivility, I do not wish to edit-war, I am not seeking to battle anyone, and I am not exercising ownership over any articles. I approached the community of users who edit TV-related articles about making changes in an effort to improve the articles, primarily concerning style and formatting. My wish is to see the articles written in a way that can easily be digested by everyone. ( my thread on WT:TVS) Neutralhomer, acting as if he is the keeper of all TV station articles, rejected my proposals without considering them and has chosen to hide behind "consensus." What consensus? All I have found is a small group of stubborn editors who are afraid of change without considering the benefits of it. They write and chose to endorse writing which satisfies only hard-core enthusiasts and not a broader audience. My conflicts with two other editors, Fairlyoddparents1234 and TVtonightokc, have been based around content and I have told them as much.

Please note that two of these editors who have been uncivil towards me (Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234) are afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome. That should be taken into serious consideration when reviewing this case, which is something the blocking administrator either was not aware of or chose not to do. DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This, folks, is exactly what I am talking about. "It is everyone else fault and I have done nothing wrong" is the same thing he has said numerous times, but everyone else hasn't been blocked for OWN, Edit-warring and other problems, DreamMcQueen has.

Also, whether or not Fairlyoddparents1234 or I have Aspergers has nothing to do with DreamMcQueen's behavior in the slightest and bringing it up shows their real intent here and it ain't a good one. The psychological dianogsis of an editor has nothing to do with the blocking abilities of an admin either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I would point out that using "they have Aspergers" as an argument is an ad hominem attack. I would also point out that both Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234 have better histories of working with/accepting community consensus than Dream does. And, well, when one person says you're edit-warring, you might be able to brush it off. When two people do, you should start wondering. When ten people do, you should probably accept that they're right and you're wrong. - Jorgath (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-involved editor with Asperger Syndrome, the suggestion that AS somehow impairs editing is absurd - by my own experience, the internet is a much easier place to communicate and work in. That type of sentiment is uncalled for and should be struck out, hopefully by the editor that made the comment. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the fact that DreamMcQueen pointed out that another user has Asbergers demonstrates DreamMcQueen's lack of understanding of what being civil means, and also demonstrates that DreamMcQueen knows nothing about asbergers. I completely agree with NeutralHomer, and I am an outsider who doesn't edit in the same areas as DreamMcQueen (I think I first became part of this discussion when I stumbled into one of DreamMcQueen and FairlyOddParents1234's first edit wars). Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before. Because of this, I support an indefinite block ASAP. Gold Standard 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a indef block of DreamMcQueen. His last post to this thread shows he is intent on continue to edit the way he has and his attacks my Aspergers are something he is defending. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment until your Asperger's Syndrome comment. Let me be blunt: you are gravely mistaken here and making a personal attack here. First, even if they are, that is irrelevant as we don't discriminate and judge others only by their actions, not a disability. Second, that isn't something you say without providing a diff where they have admitted as such, not that it actually matters, however. Third, your attitude here is less than reassuring, to say the least. I don't think you will fare well this go around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Dennis: I actually do have Aspergers, this isn't a secret, it is on my user page. Whether User:Fairlyoddparents1234 does or not, I will not speculate. But as it has been pointed out, it doesn't impair editing or understanding any the slightest and as Toa pointed out, the internet makes communicating alot easier for those with Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please do not twist my words around. You cannot say that I didn't laid out my "real intent" to you before this whole ridiculous spat got out of hand. And, as I noted to you in the very recent past, your record is not exactly clean either. You have no right to act as though you are the high-and-mighty. Unless you are without sin, you are in no place to throw stones at me. As for the other issue, well, it has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR emotions and behavior, which you obviously cannot control. You have proved it to me time and again with your angry and aggressive comments -- such as the one above. Do yourself a favor and calm down. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, where should I start on this one? You obviously haven't the slightest clue about Aspergers, Autism or the Autistic Spectrum or you would quickly realize you are so wrong in your statement it is actually laughable. Your intent here, as you have pointed out, is to force change regardless of consensus or established policy. That goes against the rules or Misplaced Pages. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop digging, the hole you are in is getting quite deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering how offensive your comments were, I was impressed by the amount of restraint he was showing. You are in essence asking me to discriminate against someone that has Aspergers, and using it as a means to discredit those who have raised an issue. This is so against our policies, and so against any sense of community decency, yet you make these comments with remarkable ease, which makes me question if you are not capable of working in a corroborative environment. And you haven't stuck your personal attacks, which is reason enough for me to block you right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never been involved with DreamMcQueen, and I'm tempted to propose a community ban. I'm just this side of not doing so, but I'd endorse an indef block in a heartbeat. - Jorgath (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support an indefinite block as the user has not struck out the comment and is defending it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend any other editors with my previous comment. The point I tried to make is that not everyone has their emotions in check all of the time. And, from what I learned, those who suffer from Asperger's have hobbies that they are deeply interested in. If someone messes with that, it can set them off into a deep mood swing. Perhaps reacting as forceful as Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents have towards me is normal for them. But that doesn't mean I sit here and take it. Those two individuals should be in better control of their emotions. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to go learn some more. People with Aspergers (only one of whom you can confirm has it) have more of a control of their emotions than you would think. Remember, Aspergers is a "high-functioning form of Autism". Most people consider to people with Aspergers to be "normal" in real life. Unless I tell someone, they can't tell I have Aspergers. So, go read a book, take a NAMI class or just talk to someone with Aspergers before claiming you have learned anything about the syndrome, because what you have said is nowhere near the truth and is still insulting and considered a personal attack according to Misplaced Pages rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for personal attacks and returning to contentious editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef-Block for DreamMcQueen

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

As we have two different places in the above main thread for this, I will start a formal one here. This is a request, after all the evidence and above posts show, that the behavior of DreamMcQueen is not going to stop and the user has shown they don't "get it", for DreamMcQueen to be indef-blocked.

• Support: As nom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As the blocking admin, I can't vote here, but I've already said on his talk page that I have no problem with any admin modifying the block if they feel I've been too generous. Just ping me afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support: User just doesn't get it, has shown no signs of correcting behavior. Note that I am supporting an indefinite block, not an infinite block; if DreamMcQueen starts acknowledging that what they've done is wrong, I'd support unblocking them. - Jorgath (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support User made offensive, incorrect remarks regarding two editors that would be considered personal attacks. Rather than striking out the comment, he has instead defended it and refused to apologize for it. Add that to the edit war history and this is an action that should be taken. Toa Nidhiki05 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as first person to suggest indef block: "Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before." Gold Standard 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This may make all of this moot, although it wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone quit Misplaced Pages forever, and it doesn't often last. - Jorgath (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Following that last comment of his, and the clear mood of the community here, I've imposed the indef block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Might Not Be Over

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

DreamMcQueen's last edit has a claim that he is indef-blocked sockpuppeteer User:Rollosmokes. I have created an sockpuppet investigation for this, as this claim needs to be looked into immediately. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I was just about to do this. We need to make sure he isn't attempting to fool us by stating that he is leaving Misplaced Pages. Gold Standard 06:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollo has done this before. Created a sockpuppet account and then went on a edit-warring spree and then got blocked. Might need to get some rangeblocks on that guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

76.173.29.20

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

Has been vandalizing the Chick-fil-A page today , but the main reason for this request were the personal attacks he levied at User:ViriiK both on ViriiK's user page and his own talk page. I realize that it has only happened twice, but the language as well as the racial component of the attacks warrant action, IMO. MsFionnuala (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As do the religious components of the attacks. Recommend block of IP for a week, or as long as is possible without it going stale, whichever is longer. - Jorgath (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens and personal attacks

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

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making personal attacks in the form of sockpuppet accusations and claiming that editors that disagree with him have an WP:IDHT issue (even though multiple consensus disagrees with him, and he's yet to point out any consensus that warrants accusing someone of WP:IDHT). At Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons he began accusing me of IDHT and of being a sockpuppet, and that I ...assert that consensus is on (my) side, and (he) would like to be able to agree to that, but there's too much similarity with previous sock attacks on fictional topics to let the apparent WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stand unchallenged.

Bascially, he's using baseless sockpuppet accusations as cause to ignore consensus, while simultaneously accusing me of somehow ignoring consensus. I asked him to stop, and the resulting conversation basically resulted in him continuing this IDHT accusation and stating that these accusations weren't personal attacks. WP:NPA#WHATIS specifically says that "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry falls under this, but apparently Jclemens doesn't see baseless accusations of sockpuppetry or WP:IDHT as personal attacks. I've tried resolving this with the editor on his talk page, but as they have "simply nothing further to say on the topic" I'm bringing it to ANI so that this can be resolved. Jclemens has been notified. - SudoGhost 04:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in WP:WIAPA that describes accusations of sock puppetry as a personal attack. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. - SudoGhost 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when when were unsupported allegations of dishonest behaviour not personal attacks? When they come from ArbCom members? Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, he never directly accused anyone of being a sock. He only said previous puppeteers targeted these types of articles. Hot Stop 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens said so in a way that implied that SudoGhost was a sock, in my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a sockpuppet somewhere in that whole mess, because Jclemens is an experienced sock-blocker. But they need to be more careful in how they phrase it unless they file the SPI. - Jorgath (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Actually, there is, you just have to put a few pieces together. As SudoGhost put it, an accusation of sockpuppetry is an accusation about personal behavior. An accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence is a personal attack. Ergo, an accusation of sockpuppetry, if it lacks evidence, is a personal attack. I'm not saying Jclemens is wrong, but to be blunt, they need to either put up or shut up on this one: either file the SPI, or retract the allegation. - Jorgath (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the original comment linked "The level of WP:IDHT involved in the arguments for redirection is... peculiarly high, and reminds me of some banned sockpuppetteers, actually" Jclemens doesn't specify the sockpuppet. If SudoGhost hadn't gone overboard with his warning afterwards, nothing else would've happened. Hot Stop 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Per my above, Jclemens seems to me to imply that SudoGhost is the sock they're talking about. They backtrack on that, but they don't retract it. If it was misconstrued, a retraction may still be in order. Apologizing for saying something that was misconstrued is just as important to maintaining a civil, collegial atmosphere as refraining from intentional attacks. - Jorgath (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like you're having trouble hearing Jclemens's explanation. this thread seems like a good enough example. It's not a personal attack to say that you appear to be deliberately missing the point. It's certainly not a good habit to make wanton accusations of sockpuppetry but that's not a personal attack either. If I say "Jclemens is an idiot," that's a personal attack. I've cast an aspersion against an individual directly. If I say instead "Jclemens is ignoring consensus" (or some variation), that's not even remotely a personal attack. That this discussion went round and round on the same exact topic 5-6 times before Jclemens asked you to leave is a sign that IDHT wasn't a baseless accusation, IMO. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA#WHATIS. Accusations such as this are personal attacks. What part of WP:IDHT am I doing? - SudoGhost 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad. What specifically are you requesting as a result of this thread? A block for NPA? Doc talk 04:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not after a block, I don't think that's ever constructive if it can be helped, but what I see is a problem with someone making personal attacks when they don't see that as a problem, because that just suggests that this behavior will continue if he doesn't see it as an issue. I'd like some kind of acknowledgement that this was a personal attack and that it be retracted (and/or an SPI filed if they feel that's necessary). - SudoGhost 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Doc talk 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Put up or take it back, essentially. I like it. Quite reasonable. - Jorgath (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see an accusation there at all. Jclemens is saying that the arguments/consensus heralded by SudoGhost reminds them of those by socks who have been active in those articles. One can easily call that a hollow argument (just cause a sock said it doesn't mean it's baseless), and I hope that Jclemens would have better ammo, but it is not a personal accusation, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Throwing "reminds" into a sentence is like saying "with all due respect", it doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and it isn't an attack on another editor. Why would "when I see your comments, I'm reminded of a dishonest editor" not be a personal attack? That's also ignoring the fact that accusations of WP:IDHT (i.e. sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it) without evidence is also a personal attack. - SudoGhost 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pointing out IDHT is not a "personal attack". People have to communicate around here, often in a less than utopian manner. Personal attacks can always be extrapolated from even borderline remarks concerning another editor's behavior, but it's not always a big deal. Doc talk 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:IDHT is ignoring consensus and still commenting as if there is no consensus against the comments. Accusing me (repeatedly) of WP:IDHT is telling me that I am ignoring consensus with my comments. This is an accusation about personal behavior. I've asked for evidence multiple times; none has been provided. This is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. While the definition of what a personal attack is can be debatable, this in particular is not, it is never acceptable. This is per WP:NPA#WHATIS, this isn't something I came up with on my own. If that isn't a personal attack, then this Misplaced Pages policy needs to be corrected, because that's what it says. Citing WP:IDHT is one thing, but accusing someone of WP:IDHT and therefore accusing them of being disruptive (and therefore open to blocks or bans) because of their comments is a personal attack if they don't provide evidence of such. - SudoGhost 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• You came here 20 minutes after your "final warning" to Jclemens, a respected administrator. Do you feel that this was the best step in resolving your issue with that editor? Doc talk 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know where you're getting "20 minutes" and "final warning" from (I never said anything close to that). I came here after he declared that "As far as I'm concerned, there's simply nothing further to say on the topic" and "To be perfectly clear: I decline to apologize for my statement as a personal attack... because it wasn't." The top of this page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I have done so, and the issue was not resolved. I don't see what the timeliness of the report has to do with it. The fact that he is "a respected administrator" has no bearing on his need to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy, if anything it means he is more compelled to do so. - SudoGhost 06:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• July 31, 2012 "I'll ask again so that I can say I tried." - Edit summary looks like a "last chance" for comment. I said "final warning", but it was a euphemism.
• July 31, 2012 . Thread started. That looks like 20 minutes to me, but I could be off. Doc talk 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not following your connection here, and that also wasn't any sort of "final warning"; he had already said he was done with the conversation. I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything? There was no "final warning", and these are personal attacks, I discussed them with the editor and attempted to resolve it. He ended the discussion. I followed the instructions at the top of this page. Are you suggesting that what I've said has no merit based on some perceived procedural error? What are you trying to get at here? - SudoGhost 06:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thread's going nowhere, at least not where you want it to. Call it... clue. Doc talk 06:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you just tried to say or what "call it... clue" means, but changing to subject to whatever it is you were trying to say about procedural quibbles doesn't mean it's "going nowhere". - SudoGhost 06:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• See what Reyk said below. FYI: "Clue" is sort of like a general sense of how things will probably work out. Call it an educated "hunch". Doc talk 06:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS. What a stupid thread. SudoGhost, you're getting overly worked up over a little thing, just let it go. Jclemens, WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS is not the same thing as WP:IDHT. Reyk _YO! 06:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sudo: well????? This thread is dead. Can I close now? I need to rack up some admin work for my RFA. – Lionel 10:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? Because comments like that are exactly what people will point to at an RFA to oppose. If you're not serious, what's the WP:POINT? What am I missing? Sædon 10:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing is sure, Jclemens seems to have resorted several times to careless accusations of sockpuppetry (users involved have never been found as sockpuppets) whenever he finds someone who disagrees with him (at AfD or anywhere else): , and (this last one was even more direct than what he said to SudoGhost: "You behave and argue very much like a couple of banned sockmasters, each of whose newest incarnation also strenuously denies being a sockpuppet". Some of you might argue that what Jclemens said to SudoGhost "is not a big thing", still, that's the 4th time (at least from what I've seen) he does that with 4 different users, and I'm afraid this might become a recurring argument of his if nothing is done, which could dramatically deteriorate the atmosphere of future editorial debates in which he takes part. I certainly don't see how Jclemens could be assuming good faith if, according to him, there is a sockpuppet behind every argument that doesn't fit his views (or indeed if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS magically becomes WP:IDHT). If he really suspects sockpuppetry to be at work and if he has serious arguments to request checkusers, then he should do it, but this constant use of sockpuppetry suspicion whenever someone dares to disagree with him in a debate, never followed by checkusers, at least shows assumed bad faith, and at worse could be taken as intimidation attempts by new users. Whichever it is, it seems quite clear Jclemens has forgotten to remain civil, this is not an isolated incident and Jclemens had no reason to suspect SudoGhost, Snow, Avanu or me (and if WP:DISAGREESWITHJCLEMENS becomes ground for suspicion, there's potential for a lot of abuses). AN/I needs to adress that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the whiplash. It seems WP:BOOMERANG is becoming the norm around here whether it is deserved or not. It's like the first editor who contradicts the OP gets a prize.--v/r - TP 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering one of the editors (Avunu) Jclemens accused of being a sock came back from a five year hiatus, I think that one's reasonable. And both Avunu and FdF have lengthy block logs. Hot Stop 13:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are three questions I pose: 1) Is SudoGhost's complaint completely 100% without merit, and 2) If it is without merit, has the response here been appropriate to diffusing the situation and solving the problem amicably? 3) In a way that doesn't leave SudoGhost feeling unsupported, alone, and frustrated?--v/r - TP 13:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with wikipedia is that well-established persons are immune to guidance until it progresses to where they jump the tracks badly. This looks like the borderline nasty behavior that is pervasive in Misplaced Pages. Tell JClemens that and that they should be setting a better example. And leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The larger problem here is that Jclemens, while a decent Arbcom member, gets to be rather insufferable when he dons his WP:ARS Cap. The argument that "30+ years of sourcing in the industry" excuses a need to satisfy WP:N is really what is in "I didn't hear that" territory, as several others point out the notability guides. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with North8000 here. An editor shouldn't use the "sock" word unless they are ready and willing to back it up with an WP:SPI or similar action. While it might not always be a personal attack, it is always incivil when done flippantly. No editor should call another a sock without evidence or action, since "socking" itself is a blockable offense, and it is an aggressive tag to throw at someone. I don't see a need for any action or boomerang, personally, but all editors should refrain from using the term "sock" so casually, including Jclemens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Diefromevileye

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

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

This guy left me a very creative talkpage message after I made a simple revert of a relatively minor edit of his at Holodomor. I'm more amused than anything else, but it's clear that he needs to cool down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It beggars belief that a good faith editor would make a comment like that. In light of the other editing history and talk page messages, I think a block on Diefromevileye (talk · contribs) is in order as a troll account. Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I propose that Diefromevileye should be blocked (admin's discretion), and also awarded 8/10 in the Creativity in Insult category. - Jorgath (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well, it wasn't that creative. Bushranger issued an only warning for it, so let's wait for the next one. I am not yet willing to block indefinitely, and we don't do cool-down blocks, but YMMV. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, he's here to "build an encyclopedia" alright. Give 'em some more warnings, despite the edit history. I can't wait to see their next improvement here. Doc talk 05:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. Note that this editor was blocked for 3 days on 21 June for disruptive editing, edit-warring and personal attacks and I just warned him for edit-warring at Holodomor. TFD (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Block - Seems like a charming fellow... too bad we have to block them for a while. Shadowjams (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. How much longer is this going to continue? Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayemd

I'm wondering if someone else can convince User:Jayemd that Misplaced Pages isn't a game. It started when Jayemd began to award himself barnstars (example diffs: 1234567) followed by inappropriately refactoring a warning into a congratulatory message. He was subsequently warned about self-awarding barnstars and also directed towards WP:NOTFORUM for more information about the project. Jayemd then refactored the signatures on his barnstars (1234) to appear as if they were left by other users—all retired users, it appears—and refactoring the warning about self-awarding barnstars into another congratulatory message. Afterwards, he refactored more warnings (12) and awarded more fake barnstars (123). He was warned about refactoring, again about self-awarded barnstars, and about treating the project like a game, after which Jayemd acknowledged the warnings. Other non-encyclopedia activities including putting a description of a wrestling points system on Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales and a "WikiFame" system again on Jimbo's user talk page. During this time, he began removing appropriate redlinks from numerous articles (1234567 are just a few examples, his list of contributions is filled with removals of redlinks), even though he was told repeatedly to stop (123). The last message was by myself, after which Jayemd just admitted on my talk page that he did it "just to reach 1,000 edits", which says to me that he's still treating Misplaced Pages like a game. Many of his contributions are positive, don't get me wrong, but I still feel that he has a lot to learn. Seeing numerous edits without references (123) led me to link to WP:V and WP:REF when I left him a message earlier, but I see that since then he's created a couple of new articles (Danny Miller (wrestler) and John Riker) without references of any kind. At this point, I feel a temporary block is justified, at least until he gets a handle on our guidelines and a better understanding of our fundamental goal (writing an encyclopedia). I'm assuming that he means well, but as it stands he's just making a lot of work for other editors without much much to show in terms of actually encyclopedic content. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind Jayemd that competence is required. - Jorgath (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Jorgath, you should read the essay competence is required, which suggests that you should not do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Jayemd's userboxes, he's only 14. I was wondering whether, in the light of various issues, we could maybe point him in the direction of helping out with working on The Misplaced Pages Adventure. Strikes me that he could possibly both be helpful to that project, and benefit from the insights he might get from doing so. I'll ping Dcoetzee to look at this idea. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've dropped a link on Jayemd's talk page to the work-in-progress Newcomer's manual, on the off chanced that it might help him get a better handle on things here. Pesky (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an exception in this case because I felt that Jayemd displayed competence, just not consistently, and I believed that reminding them of the competence requirement might encourage them to edit from their competent style more often. I apologize if I offended them, or anyone, by doing so. - Jorgath (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he now "gets" the redlink policy. You shouldn't have been branding him a vandal - it is not helpful. Youngsters do tend to pratt about with barnstars and so on - it's not harmful, and he will grow out of it. On the other hand this recent string of edits seems excellent (a lot of wrestling articles are in a dire state, so that's good to see). I think he needs a good, friendly mentor more than a block. --Errant 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would offer, but Real Life issues are taking priority and I couldn't give him the time he needs / deserves. I have to say that in some respects I can understand the redlink thing – they drive me absolutely nuts! (OCD thing ... worse than crumbs in the bed. Actually, it's more like eating half a salad while watching a film, then turning over a lettuce leaf and finding half a dozen slugs. And then wondering ...). But maybe if the first thing he did was to hide any templates where they're showing, before he even looks at the rest of the page, then he'll have "Made them go away" for himself, without affecting anyone else. If I see a page with a stack of redlinks I tend to close it, pronto, and go away and find something to obsessive-compulsively blitz-clean. My hands, sometimes, lol! On the subject of mentoring, Worm might be up for it, perhaps? Pesky (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think mentoring could be a net positive here, and I'd be happy to be the mentor, if:

• The community's expectations are made clear. "No more fake barnstars or editcountitis; just concentrate on improving content", for instance.
• The community sets a future date where Jayemd and I come back to AN/I, or to some other forum, and we can discuss whether or not mentoring has worked and whether any next steps are needed. 3 months?
• Jayemd agrees with the mentoring, and is happy to focus their editing on other areas, with some discussion with a grumpy old curmudgeon like me. Results haven't been great so far, but I think that with a little help they have a good chance of becoming a really productive editor and making some really positive changes.

Sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need all that? Point 1 covers everything except the talk page inappropriateness: add that and call it a mentorship package (I assume that's this week's euphemism for an editing restriction) and everything should be hunky-dory. With any luck the user will simply grow out of it, though I note that it's certainly not bored teens who are the worst offenders when it comes to barnstaritis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer it to be consensual; some editors might feel that mentoring is patronising, and in that case it's likely to be a waste of time. There's a good reason for a time limit too. Have no interest in gratuitous bureaucracy, though... happy to get on with mentorship if the esteemed ErrantX & Pesky think it's the best tool in the toolbox. If you just want to ban somebody from doing X, Y, and Z, that's not mentoring. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits have not been encouraging. Unreferenced BLPs, replies on long-archived talk pages, whatever this is, worrisome ANI responses. That's all from after this thread was started. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is awarding oneself barnstars a transgression now? As long as the barnstars aren't worded in a way to deceive, e.g. claiming to be Jimbo, a bureaucrat, etc... then that part shouldn't be an issue here. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a hanging offence; but combined with the other editing concerns, I think that Jayemd would benefit from some pointers at least. (There's room for disagreement about whether the suggestions should be delivered by polite discussion or by a 2x4). This is supposed to be a project to build an encyclopædia; all of us get distracted occasionally but we have to get back on track... bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've "fixed" three BLP-prods which appeared on his talk, and showed him (on his talk) how. I;ve also dropped some various hints and tips over there. I suspect he may learn quickly, once he gets going. He may not have caught up with his talk page since I edited it. Pesky (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you all for everything done so far. This looks like a good start, so I'm content to step back and hope that mentoring works out. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, can someone better than me step in? He's having new stubs deleted as A7's, but it's possible that these are being created as he's just been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks ... it would be a real bummer for him to be doubly-zapped, once for removing redlinks, and the next time for trying to turn them into bluelinks ... I don't know (or care, lol!) the first thing about footie, but someone must be able to do something with this? This kid's going to be in tears otherwise – he's in a no-win situation. Pesky (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiFame

I could not figure out the purpose of this page: Misplaced Pages:WikiFame. Looks like an attack page. --15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not. It's a new...enthusiastic...editor.--v/r - TP 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above.--v/r - TP 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer, passive legal threat

The James H. Fetzer article has been at a slow simmer for quite some time, with the subject of the article editing under numerous IPs and participating on the talk page and various user talk pages from time to time. This diff does not appear to be the subject of the BLP, but does appear to be closely associated with the subject based on the signature used in some of their edits. That diff includes a somewhat passive legal threat, which combined with the editor's other edits should warrant a block from editing.

The larger issue of the slow simmer on the page could use a few additional eyes, and I am requesting that others take a look at the article in question - specifically the behaviour of the involved editors and anons. My edits to the article, article talk, and some associated editors talk pages are (of course) open to discussion. While it is my belief that I have edited only with an intent to move the project forward, I am open and interested in any guidance anyone has to offer.

Thank you for taking a look. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's obviously a legal threat, are there grounds for WP:DOLT here? What prompted this user to make a threat? - Jorgath (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's sorta wrong, in that most libel causes have the shortest of statute of limitations... for good reason, threats that really matter should be followed up on quickly, and should not hang like a sword above the head of the defendant. Anyway, it's kinda a legal threat but also not so much. I'd personally let it go unless they keep up with it. Is there something of actual substance behind this? If so let's find out, and address it. If not, then let's move on, unless the editor continues to be disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't figured that out yet... There appears to be a connection with the subject, who has at times been dissatisfied with the article, but I haven't seen the personal attacks from the subject in his various IP edits. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter whether he's legally right or wrong. Legal threats are not compatible with editing Misplaced Pages, end of story. Blocking won't help much given the IPs, but I'll warn the editor anyway. (IP has been blocked). ⇒SWATJester 15:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there really any need for all those name and shame templates on the talkpage - Talk:James_H._Fetzer including one that looks like it might be the subjects email address? - Clearly the guy is upset - he is getting the wikipedia labeling treatment when he is so much more than a conspiracy theorist. - Youreallycan 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting a bit off the subject for this noticeboard (compared to the talk page itself) but you've got a good point. They are helpful in pointing out when the subject of an article is editing, but on a 24 inch monitor they take up half the vertical space on the talk page at 1920x1200. That's a bit excessive I think. I'll look into a collapsable way of showing them akin to what's on WP:RFPP. ⇒SWATJester 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone should try to archive all of the long historic discussion from the talkpage as well - and then you might as well do the guy a favor and block any account claiming to be him and remove what they post to the talkpage as he is never going to get satisfaction there. Youreallycan 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I put a collapsable template in there that starts auto-hidden. If you don't mind, please take a look to make sure nothings broken? ⇒SWATJester 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better - thanks SWAT - Youreallycan 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the email address username (which had no edits, even deleted, and thus is in no way a "contributor") as well as all the IP's, which just seemed excessive to me. LadyofShalott 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Societatea.academica.ro (collective account)

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

User:Societatea.academica.ro has the name of a society and/or website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. No Misplaced Pages usernames should be or intended to be in reference to a society/website. --Jayemd (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Chembox edits by Plasmic Physics - next chapter

We've been here just before about chembox-edits by Plasmic Physics (talk · contribs) - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive761#Chembox_edits_by_User:Plasmic_Physics. It is why I am jumping the gun and not discussing with the editor first, moreover, there are other discussions with this editor going on on WT:CHEM regarding the previous AN/I discussion and other ChemBox issues.

Today, I noticed this revert by Plasmic Physics. In a way, pretty lame edit both ways, it does not change the value, just changing both the number and the unit by a factor of 1000. Now, to my recollection, most places on the internet and in chemical literature record densities in g/mL or kg/L, which gives generally for liquids and solids a number generally between roughly 0.5 and 4 (with some exceptions). Reporting it in mg/mL or g/kg would result in numbers between 500 and 4000 (with exceptions). Anyways, that is not a big deal what the unit exactly is. It should be noted, that all units here are SI, it is a matter of calling it kilo-, milli- or whatever. But:

• as far as I can see, the density was originally in g/mL, and changed, by Plasmic Physics, to mg/mL here
• someone is changing it back to the (IMHO more common) g/mL here. The editor is accidentally adding a sig, which is removed by another editor)
• Plasmic Physics changes it back here
• Someone changes it again here
• Which gets reverted here
• Today, it is again changed back to g/mL here
• which results in the revert mentioned above (this).

Now, reverting this suggests that this is deemed 'vandalism', which is a stretch ..

This does not go alone ..

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

The other side involves all IP or 'new' users. I must say that I could consider also their changes futile, and this may involve one physical editor, but I do not see any attempt from Plasmic Physics to communicate with this user, or any explanation whether the changes are wanted. Admins at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemicals/Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry (including me) are probably all involved (see older WikiProject Chemicals discussions linked from the previous AN/I discussion), but I think that it is time that uninvolved admins take a look at this. --Dirk Beetstra 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of revert warring, hmm? I'll see what I can do. --Jayemd (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I this particular concern not a bit petty? I was told by the WT:CHEM project to use prefixes appropriate for the individual entry, that I should not seek to standardise the SI prefixes in chemboxes. So I chose an appropriate prefix according to the recomendation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not revert because I believe it to be vandalism, but because it is a pointless edit and opposes the Projects view, if the intension is to standardise. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Current events appears to have been vandalized

I went to Portal:Current events and it didn't display a regular MediaWiki page. Instead, I got an HTML page with a gray background and the following at the top of the page:

Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of the current events page. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you.

What's going on? PhageRules1 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that the page source does not appear to have been changed. PhageRules1 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably a change to something transcluded there; a variation on template vandalism. bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got a very similar message when trying to preview edit a page. Its related to this however Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Earth Exploding Live.Blethering Scot 16:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the Ham Cork Fest section below. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Justicejayant IP socking

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

• Justicejayant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Clarificationgiven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.17.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A122.169.12.62 Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped this could be dealt with elsewhere quietly, but it seems that clue is a scarce resource around here these days, so AN/I it must be.

Justicejayant was caught using IPs to edit-war back in early June, the culmination of a pattern of disruption leading to his indef-block by User:Bwilkins. The IPs are dynamic, on the 122... range, and traceable to the same region in India. This diff, presented at that 3RR report, firmly establishes a connection between the account and the IP range.

Following the indef-block, JJ tried to slip in under the radar with a new account, Clarificationgiven. After continuing in much the same disruptive manner, an SPI was opened. The JJ and CG accounts were near-definitively linked, and the latter was summarily indef-blocked as a sock on 29 July by User:Keilana.

In the spirit of WP:DENY, User:Sopher99 removed a number of comments to Talk:Libyan civil war made by CG. Lo and behold, 122... IPs swoop in to revert the removals 1 and begin editing the article itself 1. I revert on both fronts, and soon find myself gradually sucked into revert-warring with JJ's IPs: 1 2, etc.

In an effort to head off the problem and finally get some sleep, I lodge a request at WP:RPP for at least the article to be semi-protected. JJ's IP (surprise, surprise) follows me there 1. At this point, I'm getting pretty cheesed off at this guy; in my irritable insomniac state, I revert the IP here as well 1, with predictable results 1. This continues as before.

User:Armbrust takes note of the reverts, but apparently doesn't bother to look into them much, slapping myself 1 and the IP 1 with templated edit-warring notices. User:Callanecc restores the IP's comments at RPP that I had removed 1 2. The IP, playing innocent just like JJ, goes off to WP:DRN to file some bogus thread 1; seeing this, User:Deryck Chan declines the protection request 1.

Now, I am very much aware that in my attempt to WP:DENY recognition, I created a gargantuan conflagration. I still stand by WP:3RRNO #3 as my justification for edit-warring; should others deem that insufficient, I will accept the consequences (such is the price for nightowl editing). However, I'm not happy at all that this had to get to this point and have serious reservations about the clue level displayed at WP:RPP. Resolution would be desirable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to point out that another IP posted as ClarificationGiven on my talk page. I don't have time to deal with it right now, but if it's not resolved by the time I get home from work, I'll take a closer look. Keilana| 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this user is just over pressured and loosing the temper, as it can be seen in his recent edit history too, this user seems to be concentrating on populating false information and vandalism than contribution, and trying to dictate everyone over here, which is against the rules, i don't think any kind of socking is done by me here. 122.169.0.48 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This 122. Ip keeps harassing these pages. Justicejayant was found to be these 122. Ips, and Clarificationgiven was found to be User:justicejayant. Sopher99 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the post Keilana is referring to and yes, this is him. The archived case may be read here. It is also block evasion as Clarificationgiven has not posted an unblock request but has just simply moved around it to cause disruption. Until he deals with his unblock request, we shouldn't deal with his IP postings. Recommend page protections and blocks for any IP that he is using.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ham Cork Fest

someone please block User:Ham Cork Fest immediately for spamming/breaking a series of some of the most transcluded templates. Frietjes (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours, but (in my opinion) should be increased to indef. Frietjes (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if others agree: my immediate motivation was to stop him. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's blatant vandalism which breaks a large number of pages. I would recommend fully-protecting templates which are so widely transcluded, because creating a new account to circumvent a block is easy. The change to {{Infobox settlement/metric}} broke about 77000 articles, and the other templates have 40k or 50k transclusions; it looks like they worked their way through a list of most-transcluded templates looking for ones which weren't fully protected. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Same editor has operated as 108.25.128.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not sure what to do here - block the IP, or what? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it definitely the same person? (I don't see the connection at first glance; no doubt you have a good reason to suspect it). An IP could probably do less harm, since highly-transcluded templates which aren't fully protected tend to be at least semiprotected. Nonetheless, if there's a good reason to believe that an IP could play similar tricks then a block would prevent damage. bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crap. You're right - the page was one which transcluded one of the templates vandalised by Ham Cork Fest, so when it popped up on my watchlist and I viewed the diff, all that I saw was the message from the template. Thus, the IP is the innocent party here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

Something interesting, that I've never seen before, has cropped up on my radar. When typing in Prior Park to the search box and following the link, I get a nearly blank screen with pretty small writing at the top, saying "Earth Exploding Live sends friendly greetings to readers of this article. This message will be taken down within 24 hours if the link specified gets at least 2000 hits. Thank you." The link on Earth Exploding Live is to User:Earth Exploding Live, an account that only made one edit, in May 2012, and raised concerns that it was a sockpuppet, and was immediately blocked as such. Looking at 'what links here' to that account name () pulls up a long list of articles, mostly of places and locations, which do not immediately appear to contain a link to that user page. Anyone have any idea what's going on? Benea (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Template vandalism; see the section above. In the case of Prior Park, it transcluded {{Designation/colour}}. bobrayner (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't figure out which template is broken, but the Knights of Columbus page is still showing this issue.Marauder40 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That one transcluded {{url}} which has now been fixed by Fluffernutter. bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guessed template vandalism somewhere, but it's not to do with {{Designation/colour}} or others edited by the user mentioned above. This is another issue. Benea (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that one got it. Benea (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards