Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GreyWinterOwl (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 6 September 2013 (Naming and shaming editors on the talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:39, 6 September 2013 by GreyWinterOwl (talk | contribs) (Naming and shaming editors on the talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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. (archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Topic ban for Esoglou

    I would like to propose a topic ban for User:Esoglou from the subject of homosexuality. The user has demonstrated a persistent intent to push a political agenda (and, having been topic-banned from abortion on two separate occasions for POV-pushing, isn't a stranger to this concept). Most recently, this has manifested itself in adding, three times in the past two days ( ), the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health". However, the problem goes back much further and indicates that Esoglou's primary goal is not to follow WP policy or improve articles but rather to promote his personal opinions about homosexuality and to make the Catholic Church look good (see eg. this edit, where he wrote a lovely little speech about the real reason the Holy See opposed a particular resolution). He has a persistent habit of doing his own "analysis" of reliable sources when they contradict his personal views ( convoluted language which he explained here is intended to undermine the sources, "a word that does not appear in the document"), of otherwise engaging in original research (eg. ), and of adding frivolous citation tags for reliably sourced facts with which he personally disagrees (eg. , , ). I used to think that he was not a native English speaker and that his misrepresentation of sources proc eeded from a non-native speaker's misreading, but since he states he does speak English, I have to conclude that edits like this are deliberate misrepresentation rather than accidental. This is only a small selection in a long pattern; I would be happy to provide more examples or to explain anything here that is unclear (since some of it isn't immediately obvious if you haven't looked at the sources). As well, some of these edits were made repeatedly; I've mostly provided only one instance. Esoglou's reliance on agenda-based sources and promoting them over neutral scholarly ones almost goes without saying, and he also has a problem with plagiarism (which may extend beyond this topic area, I haven't looked at his other edits), which he has outright declared isn't a reason to revert his edits.

    I warned the user yesterday that this had gone on for far too long and that with the next disruptive edit he made, I would report him to ANI. (I had previously warned him in March. What can I say, I'm nice.) He then restored his statement about homosexuality posing a "widespread threat to life and health." The user is clearly not interested in following policy where to do so conflicts with his desire to push his personal agenda, and a topic ban to end this disruption is long overdue. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

    Just seeking some clarification after reading the diffs, is his comment about "widespread threat to life and health" his own addition or is he quoting a Catholic text?--v/r - TP 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    See my comment to TenOfAllTrades below. My version of the text was intended to show what the church's position was without stating in Misplaced Pages's voice that these claims about homosexuality were factually true. Esoglou's edit deliberately sought to say that the church's claims were true. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ahh okay, I understand now.--v/r - TP 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's sourced to "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, point 9, para. 2".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The paragraph is online, and it states: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    While this might be a legitimate reference, the understanding of homosexuality has evolved, yes, even at the Vatican, in the 27 years since this letter was issued. In 1986, there was a high rate of AIDS in some American cities which received an enormous amount of media coverage. I imagine that is part of the subtext behind "threaten the lives" comment.
    If I was working on this article, I'd ask for a more recent reference (say, from 2000-2013) and also insist that this comment reflects an official position of the Vatican, not that it is a unambiguous fact and is true. That's just basic referencing knowledge which should be obvious to anyone who's edited for more than a few months. Liz 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


    (ec) I'm getting stuck with the first diffs, there. It doesn't appear, on its face, that it is Esoglou saying that homosexuality poses "widespread threat to life and health", but rather reporting that that is the position – however bigoted, wrongheaded, and offensive – of the Roman Catholic church on the matter. Given that the article is Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it is not immediately obvious that we shouldn't summarize or report on the church's statements and opinions on this topic—as long as we are careful to ensure they are properly representative (per WP:WEIGHT, etc.) and as long as we are careful not to endorse those views in Misplaced Pages's voice. (Far from making the Catholic church "look good", adding in this type of material ought to be embarrassing.) I'm not saying that a topic ban is or is not warranted, but I'm a bit concerned that the commentary offered here is not well supported by the diffs provided.
    Looking at the most recent thread on Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Alleged campaigning against decriminalization, it appears that Esoglou is engaged in a fairly calm, reasonable discussion about a point of contention. Esoglou offered a frank and apparently sincere apology regarding an error he made, and the discussion resulted in a reasonable compromise edit satisfactory to all parties, including Roscelese, which seemed to best reflect the sources at hand.
    Honestly, quickly glancing at the article's talk page, it's a bit difficult to untangle who is (most) worthy of trouting. In bickering between Roscelese, Esoglou, and Contaldo80 last week at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#"Inhuman", the question about whether or not the Holy See described gay sex as "inhuman" got bumped over to RSN: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holy See document. It appears that the only two independent editors to comment on the issue came down more on the side of Esoglou's interpretation of the sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    With regard to your first point, you will note in the edits in question that I specifically addressed this concern: to convey the church position without promoting factual inaccuracies, I wrote "what the church claims are risks" and "may supposedly constitute a widespread threat." Esoglou removed this text. There is no way to read this as just conveying the church position. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I am looking at the first three diffs that you presented above: . In all three cases, it is quite clear that the claims about homosexuality are attributed to the church, and are not in Misplaced Pages's voice. In every case, the sentence at issue opens with "The Catholic Church has said that...". Are you saying that Esoglou's edits aren't a factual representation of what the Catholic church has said?
    It's neither necessary nor productive to insert multiple hedging statements inside every sentence where we talk about religious beliefs or dogma. In our article on Jesus, we write "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." We don't say – and we don't need to say – "Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by a purported Holy Spirit, born of a woman who claimed to be a virgin, performed acts that Christians claim were miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion, rose from a poorly-documented death, and ascended into a supposed heaven..."
    Above, Liz raises a much more pertinent point, in that the material cited is some decades old, and may not reflect current Roman Catholic beliefs. As such, it may be worthwhile to review the content in that light, and consider whether Misplaced Pages should address it in the context of historical or current Catholic doctrine—particularly given that it is prominently placed in the lede of the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    It seems obvious to me that there is a difference between non-falsifiable religious beliefs and demonstrably false scientific claims that happen to be located in a religious article, but this is not really the venue for that discussion and I won't waste your time or my own with breaking that down. The statements about the "harm" of homosexuality aren't the only false claims that Esoglou has inserted, and I've also documented a selection of instances of original research and frivolous tagging intended to make the articles conform to his own personal beliefs rather than to reliable sources. If it were only the first three diffs, I would not have brought the issue to ANI. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I will be extremely honest and frank here by saying that both Roscelese and Esoglou are intractable POV-pushers bent on shaping articles to their world view. The only way the integrity of Misplaced Pages is maintained is by both of them canceling each other out. Therefore I will only support a topic-ban for Esoglou if one is also enacted for Roscelese as well. AN/I is a poor venue to bring this kind of content dispute, it is more of an attempt to summon a lynch-mob to remove your competition from the article so that you can steamroll it. If Roscelese truly seeks relief then she will take the time and file a WP:RFCU which would be the best venue for discipline. Elizium23 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    Alternately, if you have any evidence of my inserting insulting factual inaccuracy, deliberately misrepresenting sources, engaging in original research, or wasting everyone's time with frivolous tags, you could start a thread to present those diffs, as I have done. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have evidence of your consistently condescending attitude which always hovers at the twilight edge of WP:CIVIL, and there is clear evidence of your tendency to edit-war in the last two years' worth of block log, which Esoglou does not have. He is admittedly disingenuous and hard to reason with at times, but I personally feel that his abortion topic-ban was an unfortunate casualty as a result of his indelicacy around such a contentious topic which has had its share of trips to WP:ARBCOM. Esoglou should be commended and awarded a Purple Heart for his ability and willingness to step into contentious topics such as homosexuality and defend the alternative viewpoint, which is one that is vanishingly rare around these parts, and probably always has been. Misplaced Pages needs both of you, but there are more of you than there are of him and me, which is what concerns me the most with these frequent trips to WP:ANI and other drama-venues in search of a lynch mob. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm curious, and I'm simultaneously too lazy to look at your contribs for this, so I'll ask you for testimony on this. What dispute resolution venues did you attempt before coming here? You've mentioned two warnings to his user talk page. Apparently this article went to WP:RSN previously, which clearly wasn't too satisfying for you. Did you try WP:DRN? Did you try WP:RFC? WikiProject talk pages? Anything else which would befit a content dispute before zooming straight into ANI looking for a drama fest? Elizium23 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    RSN is not a venue for user behavior. (Nor is DR or RFC.) As should be obvious, when consensus at RSN disagreed with me, I went with consensus rather than continuing to try to undermine the sources. If the community here thinks ANI isn't the right venue, I'd be happy to try RFC/U instead. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't understand Roscelese's objection to my changing Contaldo's "The Catholic Church also sets out a number of minor arguments against homosexuality ... is detrimental to health" to something closer to what is in the source (here) and finally to a quotation of the exact words used in the source (here). Nor do I understand her objection to this well-sourced edit, which replaced her POV text that presented the Holy See as "claiming" that a proposed resolution would lead to "discrimination against heterosexuals" (in reality against states that upheld the view that marriage by definition is between a woman and a man) and that the Holy See's representative "compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest" (it took a consultation at RSN to get her to accept that this last phrase was POV). Nor could I understand fully her objection to my changing from her deprecated expression "he points out" because, as is her custom, instead of removing whatever part of my edit she found objectionable, she immediately reverted the whole of it, including other material that is undoubtedly well sourced. I do not understand her objection above to my saying that a journalist's attribution to a document of the Holy See of an expression not in fact found in the document should be reported as the journalist's account, not as plain fact, a question that I also brought to RSN, where agreement has been expressed with my view. Nor do I understand why she sees as mere original research an edit that attributed to its author the idea (which Roscelese insists should be presented as plain fact) that the word παῖς "almost always had a sexual connotation", an idea contradicted by the account given by all dictionaries of ancient Greek, including the one that Roscelese allowed to stay in the article, but only in a footnote. Nor do I understand why she called frivolous my request for a citation in support of the idea that historically the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was not used to refer to homosexuality: this too had to be brought to RSN, where there was consensus that the source that Roscelese claimed as the basis for this statement did not in fact support it. With regard to her habitual use of "frivolous" as a pretext for not responding to such requests, I must add that, a few hours before she brought her complaint against me here, I sincerely thanked her for implicitly admitting, by actually attending to the matter I raised, that "frivolous" was not a fair description of one such request. However, she attended to it only after another editor had intervened in support of my questioning of her text.

    It is not worth while raising here questions about Roscelese's own edits, such as her removal of a surely relevant statement by the Holy See's New York representative that: "The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them", followed immediately by her insertion of the claim that "The church hierarchy campaigns against the decriminalization of homosexuality", her presentation of the Holy See's representative in Geneva in 2011 as "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation", when in fact he did not oppose adoption of the draft resolution and, even if he did, this was scarcely an NPOV way of presenting such opposition, and her insistence that, although the Irish bishops clearly wrote that, if the definition of "marriage" were changed in a certain way, they "could not" carry out certain functions, they really stated in that document, according to Roscelese, that they "would not" carry them out - until yet another consultation at RSN settled that. To her credit I must say that, after I challenged her interpretation of a Reuters account of hostile comments on Italian media concerning a statement by the Holy See's New York representative, she did not insist when presented with the full text of what the representative said.

    I recognize that Roscelese is annoyed at my poor attempts to ensure balance in Misplaced Pages articles. Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance, I in no way question her good faith in describing me as incompetent, unable to read or write English, and so on. Instead of annoying me, these descriptions now amuse me, although I suppose I reacted differently before I got used to them. I have suggested to another editor who was annoyed by the epithets she threw at him that he should take the same attitude, but this he found too difficult. As I confessed to him, too often I fail to hide my amusement. It is hard to hide it in cases like this. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    I think I'll let this comment, particularly the beginning of the last paragraph, speak for itself. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Even if I sometimes wonder if her declared sexual preference may underlie her annoyance That is totally out of line, Esoglou. Just unacceptable. Liz 19:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I concur. Roscelese and I very rarely agree on content, but the comments made about her personal life and preferences is completely over the line and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I apologize to Liz and GregJackP and to anybody else offended, for saying that this is an idea that sometimes comes to my mind but that I cast aside, believing instead that Roscelese is acting in good faith. Roscelese herself has not objected to my mentioning my rejection of this idea, perhaps because she explicitly says that I do not act in good faith but am out to advance an agenda. Not even here have I said that her personal beliefs are what inspires her editing. Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you were offended is very different from I'm sorry I said something offensive. It's the same as the difference between I'm sorry I did wrong, and I'm sorry I got caught. There's no excuse – none – to pull another editor's sexual orientation (openly declared or not) into a content dispute. If this were really an idea that crossed your mind and then was immediately discarded, there would be no reason at all to mention it.
    I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, as purely on the merits of the diffs presented here I felt that Roscelese was reading too much into your edits. Now, however, you have clearly crossed into personalizing the dispute. Drawing attention to the other party's sexual orientation as if it were in any way relevant to this discussion strongly suggests that you aren't capable of approaching LGBT-related topics calmly and neutrally, and indicates that a topic ban may be warranted after all. Frankly, Roscelese didn't do a very persuasive job of selling the topic ban; you damned yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that it is shameful to be "queer", the term Roscelese herself uses? There is nothing shameful about one's sexual orientation No more than about one's religious beliefs. I think you should apologize to Roscelese for thus insulting her. Unlike you, she doesn't think it offensive to describe herself in that way, and I presume you don't think she is saying something offensive when she refers to my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    ....just...gobsmacked. Support topic ban, support block for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Wow. Support topic ban and block per TenOfAllTrades. Esoglou, it isn't about me being offended, it is about inappropriate comments as TOAT explained above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well then, if the community judges that Wikipedians should be banned for admitting they had wondered whether an editor's edits on the topic of red hair were influenced by the fact of having red hair, I presume that, along with banning me for admitting such a thought but at the same time declaring my belief that the editor's edits were nonetheless honest and good-faith, it will also ban Roscelese for actually declaring that my religious beliefs are the reason for my edits. Is that the community's judgement? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

    I don't think that you understand what the issue is. The comment on Roscelese's sexual preferences being a basis for her edit's are not acceptable under any conditions. Period. I do not doubt that I would disagree with her on the content, there is not much that we have agreed on. If she has made comments about your religious beliefs it is also inappropriate, and I would not hesitate to tell her that. The issue I saw is that you were confronted by it and either don't hear it or don't understand. I haven't seen the same response from her. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

    You misread. What I said was that Roscelese's sexual preferences were not a basis for her edits, in spite of my sometimes wondering whether it was so. Roscelese on the contrary has accused me of editing on the basis of my religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    You're only digging yourself in. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    I've gone over this thread two or three times now, and, honestly, I see no clear and obvious reason for a proposed ban. On that basis, I would have to say that I cannot support one, and that, honestly, without such evidence being presented, there would be and is little reason for any additional commentary from Roscelese or others. If you have good, solid evidence to support the call for a ban, please present it. Otherwise, if it is not presented, I think the thread should probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    Can you clarify whether you mean that you would like more diffs or explanation of the existing diffs (as I said, this is merely a selection, and sometimes the fact that Esoglou is eg. outright fabricating things isn't obvious if you haven't read the sources), or that you disagree that this behavior is disruptive? In your opinion, would an RFC/U be a better format? (Not that ANI is an improper venue for topic ban proposals, see elsewhere on the page, but RFC/U better lends itself to explanations of why edits are bad, perhaps.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

    As a new editor on this article ~ and as someone who isn't a Roman Catholic or a homosexual ~ who is concerned about non-neutral editors pushing their own agendas, my impression so far is that it is actually Roscelese rather than Esoglou who is pushing a personal political agenda in the article. I am familiar with Esoglou on the Catholic Church and some other church-related articles. I actually consider him to be particularly fastidious, sometimes even to a fault, when it comes to articles using and reflecting reliable sources. I have not so far noticed any evidence of him pushing a personal agenda on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article. The same, however, cannot be said for Roscelese who has repeatedly edited the article in ways which distort the facts by making universal generalisations based on particular examples. I have at least twice asked that Roscelene stop editing the article in this way. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

    I concur and a reading of Roscelese's page shows she lets her personal bias reflected her editing and she uses threats of topic bans in order to intimidate others. If someone needs to be topic banned I would nominate her. She plays games and is disruptive to other editors who are exercising good faith in order to push her pov. 208.54.40.234 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    As another editor on this article I have to say that I share Roscelese's concerns. I think it's very important for the article to set out the position of the Roman Catholic Church on various aspects relating to the issue of homosexuality (but also including dissent and the real world impact from that position). Where Esoglou does this then his contributions are very welcome. The problem I have, however, is that he does not want to seem to summarise anything in the article. If he thinks a point is not propely balanced he simply responds by removing the whole section and replaces it with a chunk of text taken from some Vatican document of the other - thinking that only the Church's own words carry any weight. But this makes the article awkward to read. In truth these document are often long-winded and deliberately obtuse. The most salient points will easily be missed by all but the most patient and determined reader. There's also a bit of 'sleight of hand' in them in the sense that they seem to say one thing on the surface, but the intention can be actually quite different. I'd like to see the aricle be a bit more straight-talking and less "tricksy", and I'm not sure Esoglou can do that. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    If this continues to be sparsely attended and I do an RFC/U instead, I'll let you know, as you seem to have similar problems with the user. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Is it the community's opinion that RFC/U would be a better venue for this than AN/I? I would be able to explain Esoglou's insertion of original research and factual inaccuracy in a little clearer detail by referencing the sources which don't contain the claims he inserted. Obviously his attributing my disagreement with him to my sexual orientation would also come up. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

    There are two POV pushing and largely SPA editors who are constantly attempting to distort the neutrality of the article with their often poorly written edits containing thinly veiled personal commentary and soapboxing as well as reliance on some highly selective and POV citations. Esolglou is *not* one of these two editors. Anyone should be able to see from the talk page who are most concerned to push their own personal agendas as well as being constantly offensive. Don't let these two editors fool you that Esolglou is somehow the culprit. Afterwriting (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    I know that you think that, but you haven't actually presented any evidence, so I'm not sure how you expect anyone to take you seriously. Please don't mistake your sulking over my adding reliably cited information that you find personally distasteful for a legitimate behavioral issue. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    This is typical of the bitchy comments which Roscelese keeps serving up as her way of trying to bully and intimidate other editors on the talk pages of articles and other editors. It is her and the other idiological agenda editor who keep distorting the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article with their simplistic generalisations based on selective sources. She doesn't fool me for a moment that this is all really about her misuse of Misplaced Pages to campaign for her own personal agendas. We should not have to keep tolerating this kind of soapboxing nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not going to engage with you in this thread anymore. If you're just going to complain about my personality instead of presenting any evidence of wrongdoing, there isn't exactly anything I can refute; it's all very well to claim there's a content issue, but the fact that when confronted with a request for any evidence all you can say is "she's sooooo bitchy!" should make it clear that that's not what's going on here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    For your information, as you well know, I did *not* in fact ever say "she's sooooo bitchy!". If you choose to disingenuously misrepresent and exaggerate the comments of other editors then you need to accept responsibility for this. I suppose you imagine that your own previous comments falsely accusing me of "sulking" were somewhow not complaining about my personality? Very interesting. Afterwriting (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    You dismissed a (female) editor's complaints by calling them "bitchy". That's actually not OK, no more than Esoglu's attempt to draw attention to the same editor's sexual orientation was OK. If these are the standards of behavior at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, then clearly some outside administrative oversight is necessary. MastCell  23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    You can impute whatever suspected motivations you imagine to my wording but your interpretation of this is still completely mistaken. Whatever connotations of sexist offensiveness the use of the word "bitchy" might have in your part of the world, which I assume is the United States, here in Australia the word does not carry anything like this weight of connotation and is unlikely to be reacted to with indignant outrage. Here it is an everyday word which is commonly used by both men and women to refer to someone's snarky comments regardless of that person's gender. For an Australian to say that anyone's (male or female) comments are "bitchy" is not anything like the same thing as calling a person a "b....". So please don't project your own culture's assumptions about language onto my moral character. Your criticism of me on this issue is 100% wrong. And I trust that this is now the end of this unecessary conflict. Afterwriting (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. The behavior at that article has often been atrocious. To the extent that there are two sides in current debates (a useful oversimplification), each seems more interested in framing the article in terms calculated to offend the other rather than in improving encyclopedic value, and each seems intent on goading the other into making damfool offensive statements on discussion pages. This is not constructive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    I've undone the completely inappropriate closure of this discussion by its initiator. If Roscelese wanted to withdraw this request and pursue related issues elsewhere, that would be one thing. But trying to terminate a discussion that's not going their way in the manner of an independent closer, marked by snarky comments about editors who dispute their positions, is uncivil and disruptive, and, in my opinion, not up to the standards of honesty and candor that should be expected of discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure you can't actually compel me to un-withdraw a request I do not want to pursue in this forum. If you have your own problems with Esoglou, I have no objection to your using my diffs, but you have absolutely no business removing my statement of withdrawal as though you were forcing me to pursue this issue. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is interesting that people like Esoglou, who does not even have the most basic grasp about the difference between sexual orientation and sexual preference, are so heavily editing an article relevant to homosexuality. Would WP:competence be relevant? Cavann (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Close this discussion without action per John Carter. I think this is a typical situation of a heated content dispute, when one of the sides brings another to the ANI. A contentious discussion on ANI follows, with one of the sides "catching" another on various "offenses", politically incorrect statements, etc. One should also remember that statements related to complex cultural issues, such as that one, can be interpreted differently by people from different cultures. Looking from my perspective, none of the sides said anything really offensive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Note that I already closed this discussion because I think RFC/U is a better venue. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz re-opened it without asking me. I don't think "close without action" is the right way to put it because that implies that the whole discussion has taken place and no fault has been found, rather than what actually happened: that the filing party withdrew in order to better prepare evidence since it was clear that more explanation of how they added content not in the sources, deliberately made work for other editors, etc. was required for the benefit of the many users unfamiliar with the subject area or the editing dispute, and not just the diffs of the behavior alone. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
        • If you want to withdraw it, a simple statement is appropriate - not a unilateral termination of discussion with slams bordering on personal attackson editors who disagree with you. This is a community process, not your own talk page, or a place where you (or any editor) vents because discussion doesn't go their way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Note: Discussion restored per AN consensus that Roscolese's unilateral closure was improper. Roscolese has said they wish to withdraw the request for a topic ban and will file an RFC/U. Other matters raised in this thread remain open for discussion here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Disruption by User:Wer900

    I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

    And here's another thread from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas. Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
      ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. StaniStani  05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    @Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. StaniStani  19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

    I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.

    Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.

    I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Misplaced Pages's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Misplaced Pages, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld. Wer900talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)—tell me what content work you have done for the encyclopedia; in your honest opinion, do you think that it is enough to qualify you for a position of power on Misplaced Pages? Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, I commented on you because you were brought up as a potential party and because you are an administrator I have found, many times, to be crass, abusive, and undeserving of power, not unlike Ironholds (talk · contribs) himself. To the others, you are merely opportunists who have decided to jump on to the dogpile. Kudpung (talk · contribs), I do not wish to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee—as a word of future advice, taking the time to read a comment can lead to greater enlightenment on the issues it discusses.

        And to all, remember that my statement on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page was in response to (administrator) Resolute (talk · contribs)'s comment about "attention whores" disliking email because it does not give them the "attention hit" that they purportedly "need". Resolute's statement, like your own presentation of this AN/I, Beeblebrox, is nothing more than a perversion of the facts through the elimination of context— Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the clear object of Resolute's ire, used a public forum to voice his concerns about Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) only after ArbCom tacitly made clear its laconic approach to child protection by failing to respond to his emails in any substantive fashion. Furthermore, Resolute's comment constituted blatant degradation of an individual; with that in mind, why aren't you submitting administrator Resolute to the same extraordinary tribunal you have created for an ordinary editor like me? Is Resolute beyond policy? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Wer900talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

      • With regard to my "disruption" on Jimbo's talk page, I changed the hatnote on one of the statements in order to highlight his instinct to hide any uncomfortable comments. This is entirely incongruous with the image of a "constitutional monarch" "hold court" on his talk page. I linked a Wikipediocracy article, of my own writing, about Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions (in the present case, of a lively, vigorous, and candid discussion), but apparently the light of truth is too bright for you. I hope that is not indeed the case. Wer900talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    The fact that you can't even be bothered to log in anymore demonstrates (to me at least) your impatience to leave yet another TL;DR rant. You appear to possess such an antipathy for Misplaced Pages I suggest you go and leave your comments on your beloved Wikipediocracy because what you are doing here and over the rest of Misplaced Pages is purely a drain on our resources to have to read through all your screeds and personal attacks. A preventative indef block would be the best solution for Misplaced Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    I was about to say something critical about Wer900's edits, but then I read this moronic statement, full of textbook smug admin bullshit, and decided that Kudpung and his ilk are probably bigger dangers to WP than Wer900. Can't do anything about it though, cloaked as he is in his admin invincibility cloak.
    Wer900, stop dragging Beeblebrox's name through the mud in threads unrelated to him, or you'll be blocked. It's unfair, uncool, and unproductive. If you have a complaint, use RFC/U or ArbCom or something. Otherwise, complain about WP in general, not about one admin you're pissed at in particular. And please remember to log in, or some moron will start screaming "sockpuppet!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for your support, Floquenbeam. Regarding Beeblebrox, I'm not "dragging his name through the mud". I've taken crap from him several times in the past, and decided, by analogy, to compare him to Ironholds in the recent ArbCom case (incidentally, there was a discussion about adding Beeblebrox as a party, but that ended up in nothing). More recently, on the talk page of Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I drew attention to his massively hypocritical User:Beeblebrox/fuck off essay, which he disingenuously tried to brush off (Canens eventually deleted the entire thread because it criticized him, too. Beeblebrox deleted his essay, though he still appears to reserve the right to tell people to fuck off).

    Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have no right to critique my actions. You are typical of admins, focusing only on the meta-details surrounding the post I made—the fact that I didn't log in (that was due to an incidental lack of cookies on that computer, in case you must know)—and having the audacity to state that I am WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA when you yourself have only 27% of edits in article space and 19% automated edits via Huggle. Again, reading my statements and my grievances is key. It is you and your ilk who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to argue, debate, and create drama. Furthermore, it is evident that you have heard nothing about loyal opposition—the (anyway moronic) assertion that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy does not mean that it is a dictatorship of power players. I support the aims of Misplaced Pages, but would like it to have nothing to do with you and your friends. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), you are using the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics as Kudpung is using, and like him you are also feigning anger and disgust.

    Floquenbeam, I suggest you get out of here. You are going to be confronted by the same persons who are confronting me, and you will systematically be mistreated and driven out of the encyclopedia you helped to build by these self-serving administrators. Wer900talk 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    You continue to do an excellent job of making yourself look foolish, in fact, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Okay, in all honesty, I'm in favor of Wer900 being blocked permanently if they won't stop dragging Beeblebrox around everywhere possible. A solution might be either a Wer900 stays away from Beeblebrox in all forms, or Wer900 gets blocked. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Unsurprisingly, the answer to my direct question was more nonsense, with no supporting evidence. I don't see any reasonable way to reply to this continued defamation and harrassment other than a block of Wer, which I hope is forthcoming in the near future. Of course, if I actually was a member of an all-powerful cabal that would have happened already... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You are not being harassed or defamed. He brings you up because you are a high-profile admin with a reputation for being ill-tempered and domineering. Perhaps you should consider why said reputation persists and contemplate ways to improve it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Lol, "goats"! Honestly, the whole "I reserve the right to say fuck off if you annoy me" thing kind of speaks for itself as to why he might have a bad reputation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Ahha! There it is. I was trying to figure why you had such a grudge against me, thanks for clarifying that this all goes back to that. what was the issue again? As I recall you were rapidly re-submitting proposals for some sort of formal government structure loosely based on the same seperation of powers used in the U.S. federal government, and I said if you kept doing it I would... what, uh , ask the community if it might want to topic ban you? Something like that. And.. what, you've held on to your anger over that all this time, and done research into what a jerk I am, and these links are all you've got? seriously? Well, you tried again to make this about me instead of you. Anybody convinced by those links that I am a horrible ogre and an abusive admin? Please, look at at them and behold the infernal horrors I hath wrought. It's truly terrifying. Goodbye Wer, whatever happens I don't think I shall waste my time communicating with you ever again, but it has been mildly interesting. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Withdrawn in favor of IBAN
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Proposed block of User: Wer900

    Ugh, back from break and this is the first thing I see? Clearly a block would be in order on grounds of the WP: SOCKing alone, among more disturbing offenses. Before things get even uglier, I propose that Wer be blocked indefinitely from Misplaced Pages, per WP: TE, WP: NOTHERE and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    **Whoever you are, why is it that your sole two edits are to this AN/I? That *totally doesn't* look suspicious. Wer900talk 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    The guy who keeps complaining that there are different rules for different users wants to discount someone's opinion because they are an IP from Verizon and probably get automatically assigned a new IP every time they log in. Nothing ironic there... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's three edits, and my (now three) sole edits are to AN/I because that Is all I have to say. I speak when I wish to speak, I wished to speak at this AN/I. Once what I wish to speak is spoken, I shall be silent. Simple logic. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Comment rescinded.
    • Obvious support per WP:NOTHERE. Wer's comments are being stage-managed for him by other users at an offsite forum, and he still comes across like an angry, unreasonable troll who seems completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that it was not appropriate to harrass me in the manner he has been. If I were the only target of this nonsense I (and maybe the community) might not care all that much but pretty much all he does is deliberately agitate other users, up to and including Jimbo. This is simply not the correct approach to trying to actually solve a perceived problem, on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So a police officer gets to act like a juror? What is this madness? You make further disingenuous statements; my comments are not being "stage-managed" at all; other users saw my case and commented of their own accord, at least as much of their own decision as Kudpung's and Beyond my Ken's decisions to go against me. Is any criticism now considered "harassment"? Has the doctrine of loyal opposition been revoked? I would like to work with you productively, but your demeanor on this forum has not been conducive to that at all. Wer900talk 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    (ec with below) You need to get over your terrible analogies. I am neither a police officer nor a juror, merely a member of this community who is being harassed.. by you. You get all on your high horse about my "fuck off" essay, when you are acting far more nasty and out of line than someone who just feels like sometimes, when someone is being a persistent, deliberate, pain in the ass, it is ok to tell them to fuck off. I don't know why I am even replying to you as it is obvious you are determined to stay the course, which suits me fine because, as others have noted, every time you speak you make yourself look worse, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Beebs, stop claiming harassment and go learn the meaning of the term. You are insulting actual victims of harassment by continuing to count yourself among them. Some random person on the Internet mentioning your behavior several times as an example of the problems with this site is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - When an editor under sanction consideration has significant contributions to the project, it's always a balancing act to decide if the degree of disruption is worth the improvement to the encyclopedia. In this case, Wer900's POV regarding Misplaced Pages is so clearly off the deep end, that the degree of disruption we've seen to this moment (which is not insignificant) is obviously only a tiny harbinger of what will come. Given this, it's not worthwhile to allow him to continue editing, as he is a net-negative right now, and will only get worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, this is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. My membership at Wikipediocracy does not indicate any particular viewpoint on Misplaced Pages; our members run the gamut from Arbitrators to Gregory Kohs. As for me, I support Misplaced Pages and its goal of bringing free knowledge to the world, but do not believe that the separate-but-equal system enshrined here is beneficial for it or any of its members, and only find it to be helpful for a small group of power users. I have put up examples of Beeblebrox's abuse; this is a directory to yet more examples of his failings. I tried to refrain from posting too many diffs in order to reach concord with Beeblebrox, but if he wants to rub salt into old wounds, then I must do that.

        Moreover, why hasn't a tribunal of this sort been set up for Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? His comment about "attention whores" is merely the tip of the iceberg of his incivility. If you want to try me here, then you must try Resolute. Heck, why don't you try Jimmy Wales for a blatant misrepresentation of his "open door" policy that I pointed out earlier? Is he now above policy too?

        I came here to write about astrophysics and astrobiology, and found the governance of this site lacking. I made some comments and proposals here and there about it, but you have decided to drag me into the depths of Misplaced Pages drama. If you don't want me to be "harassing" you, then stop bringing me into frivolous cases like this one. Wer900talk 04:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

        • Wer900, I have only ever read one article on Wikipediocracy, and it wasn't by you, so I don't know what you're on about with that remark. My conclusions about your behavior and attitude are fueled entirely by your behavior right here on Misplaced Pages, and what I see is not "respect" for the project, but complete disdain for everything except your own very warped POV about it. (And, BTW, I'm not "feigning" my opinions, which you accused me of above, I honestly think that you are a danger to the project and should be indef blocked.) That's the last response I'll make to anything you post here, so please enjoy your free bite of the apple: make it good and cranky, please, so it'll be obvious to even more people why we don't need you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support some type of block or sanction until Wer900 develops a modicum of WP:CLUE and shows some recognition of the problems he has been causing. His project space/public pronouncements are out of control at the moment. One editor removed his hatting and attacks on Resolute and Beeblebrox on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Before that, AGK removed Wer900's finding about Flutternutter and Ironholds from the workshop page of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbcom case. It is this kind of highly inflammatory stirring, usually irrelevant and often offensive and highly inappropriate, that is the problem. His content contributions to astronomy and extraterrestial life-forms (a topic not in urgent need of editors) do not outweigh this disruption. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Pretty clearly yet another attempt to sacrifice a victim for a bountiful corn harvest. What ever happened to the good old fashioned interaction ban? The topic ban? Nope, straight to crazy-eyed lynch mob howling for blood... Glorious. This is a productive editor (astronomy) who has dipped his toe in the drama tank rather too frequently in the past month. Measured response, please. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Interaction ban with who? Beeblebrox? Jimbo? Resolute? Kupdung? All admins except the chosen few? The "cabal"? Anyone he decides is against him or whose "governance" of Misplaced Pages is lacking? Topic ban from what? Jimbo's talk page? All talk pages? Misplaced Pages space? Everything except astronomy and exobiology? Practical solutions, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    See below. Jimmy Wales can take care of his own page. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Unless Wer900 were to repeatedly present false evidence at AN, AN/I (or ArbCom but then ArbCom can handle that themselves). Quite a few editors (including myself) have experienced far worse things than what Beeblebrox is experiencing and when that happened were told that we should just get used to it. This despite that this typically did have consequences (like being blocked because of false rumors or otherwise restricted). In this case, given the balance of power, whatever Wer900 is saying can be ignored by Beeblebrox. He just has to say once that Wer900 is talking nonsense and he doesn't have to bother anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support. Complaints should be brought to the appropriate venue. This isn't a complaint, this is a campaign of harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Not close to being necessary, at least yet. Also, going from a clean block log to an indefinite block is a pretty drastic escalation. However, Wer900 does need to calm down. If he continues like this he might soon merit a short block, like 24 hours, for disruptive editing or personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If a user refuses to acknowledge that there are problems with their behavior, which you seem to concede is the case, a 24 hour block is only going to prevent that behavior for 24 hours. An indef block does not mean blocked forever, just until such time as they can manage to own up to their own problems and give some indication of how they would prevent similar issues in the future. Escalating blocks are appropriate for other issues such as edit warring, but I don't think they are the right remedy for a problem like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    The problem with this approach is that it leads to crazy situations. E.g. You asked Coren to block me because of a dispute about a proposal which is now an essay. Just because I didn't see things your way, you called that continued disruption and you asked for intervention. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sure Wer900 can be a bit strident, and he tends to stay focused on a perceived imperfection a bit too long, but looking at the parade of personalities on this very page, I'm not convinced he's any more block-worthy than the rest of us. Wer900, lay off mentioning Beeblebrox. Holster your towel. Relax and have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. For the rest of youse: If Wer900 is blocked over apparently being a misguided crusader, it won't look good that some of the case (see above) is cooked up from low-quality evidence. StaniStani  02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      As Newyorkbrad pointed out, this edit of Wer900 criticized Timotheus Canens' arbcom voting using the language of racial segregation. Without evidence, Wer900 also accused Timotheus Canens of operating meatpuppets to rig arbcom elections. Those kinds of statement are unacceptable. Warped or evasive arguments will not alter that. Harassment and bullying (including outing or threats of outing) might be part of the ethos of wikipediocracy, but please, Stanistani, don't try to import it over here on wikipedia. There is no need for references to crusaders/martyrs/whistleblowers, when this is just a question of trolling edits. The diffs of Wer900's edits speak for themselves: they cannot be dismissed as "low-quality evidence". Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      While I do think that Wer900 has gone a bit overboard with some of these accusation, ArbCom and some Admins have in the past engaged in underhand dealings. It's a bit similar to e.g. the US making accusations about Iran's nuclear program, this is also not all supported by evidence. But then according to the US, Iran cannot be trusted because of its past behavior leading to Iran not getting the benefit of the doubt. ArbCom and some high profile Admins who have been involved in AE will similarly not always get the benefit of the doubt from all editors here because of a similar cloud hanging over this system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd just like to note that it is the last holiday weekend of the summer season here in the states and it may be easier to see a consensus one way or the other once it is over. And on that note I am opening a delicious bottle of locally-made mead and checking out for a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • support, but perhaps an indef is a bit extreme. I say a month to a year, and then let WP:noose handle the rest. per WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:Harassment, and WP:BATTLE . the user has had several troublesome iteraction issues previouslly. however, NOTHERE doesn't appear to me to apply to this. wer has made quite a few good contributions to articles, from waht I can see of his contribs. -- Aunva6 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) indef after all, indelfinite isn't permanent, just undefined. the standard offer and noose cover unblocks well. -- Aunva6 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The thing is, an indef block doesn't necessarily have to be for even as long as a month or a year. I think that Wer900 just needs to get hold of himself, calm down, and gain a little perspective of how he's been behaving. Once that happens, and he can say to the community "I shouldn't have done that, and I'll try my best not to do it again" he can be unblocked -- and how long that takes is totally up to him. It could take a week or less, or a month or something in between - that's the beauty of the indef block, it allows for a response to the specific situation, and doesn't set a hard and fast totally artificial number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    You know and I know and we all know that indefs of perceived "enemies of the people" (vragi naroda, a Stalinist term) are permanent. Once indef blocked there will be a ready chorus to keep blocked, and that's the way that story ends. No, not quite. What this does in the long run is create embittered "to the death" style warriors out of disaffected, sometimes-productive editors. Some of the inner core of The Site That Can Not Be Mentioned have received just this sort of treatment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Of course, the drama fans on both sides love this because it assures perpetual new chapters in the soap opera so they can play instead of working on an encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    Your lack of AGF is ... astounding, and the assumptions you are making about editors' motivations show a disconcertingly battlegroundish orientation. Not everything is about Wikipediocracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - for some sort of limited block or ban, pretty much per MathSci. The behavior of this editor is clearly problematic and unacceptable. But we have a history of being a bit lenient on such matters, whether I really like that or not. Should the problematic conduct continue after the block ends, of course, then sterner steps, probably including at least consideration of a site ban, would be reasonable and called for. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Oppose - There doesn't seem to be enough evidence, some of the evidence is speculation, from the earliest accusations there were clearly two or three people involved with personal attacks, there is evidence of warlike behaviour from some accusers and there is evidence of possible long term history between the users. If anything, all three of them are guilty. The accuser, the accused and the "witness" who bared testimony. Greengrounds (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Cardamon and Stanistani. -- Hillbillyholiday 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose As per ~  TUXLIE  11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose Per Carrite and others. Frankly I find the whole rush to silence any discussion of issues with Misplaced Pages disturbing. Very disturbing. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    If all Wer was doing was discussing general issues with WP we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What he is doing is repeatedly insulting specific users in multiple threads without actually attempting to resolve whatever issues he has with them. Not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's your view, of course, which is fine. I see it somewhat differently, hence my oppose. Intothatdarkness 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    So picking another user and deciding to mention their name in every discussion of what is wrong with Misplaced Pages without ever attempting to actually address the perceived problem directly is how we are going to do things now? You wouldn't mind if every time a disruptive editor was under discussion I chimed in with "that remonds me of Intothatdarkness, another useless user who needs to just leave"? That would seem ok to you? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    My governance models, and now my membership and work for Wikipediocracy, are meant to "actually address the perceived problem directly"; don't accuse me of not doing that. And frankly, Beebs, I wouldn't care if I was spoken about negatively a few times here and there—for all I know, Teh IRC™ hates me with a vengeance. What I really don't like is the numerous false accusations put out by your side on this AN/I; you know what you've done. Wer900talk 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Please explain more carefully what your "work for Wikipediocracy" entails? How exactly does editing in project space on behalf of site-banned editors like Captain Occam figure in your plans? It is you that are offending others by unjustified finger-pointing, not the other way round. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose as unnecessary, especially now that an involved party undid a close by an uninvolved party; shameless. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Close

    Note, I closed the above discussion as no consensus; despite the fact that there had not been a new supporter of the block in nearly 3 days, Mathsci, having already expressed support for the proposed block, reverted the close stating premature conclusion. Monty845 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I have made a private request to arbitrators to clarify the claim of Wer900 on-wiki and Captain Occam off-wiki that AGK gave permission to Wer900 to initiate an arbcom case on behalf of Captain Occam. I understand that this is being discussed at the moment. My feeling is that Wer900 has been misled and lacks the experience to see matters clearly. I was and still am ambivalent about an indefinite block, since my view is that Wer900's edits at the moment seem to be confused. In the circumstances, it does no harm to wait for informal clarification from arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Close by non-involved admin restored. NE Ent 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • NE Ent attempted to close the above discussion. NE Ent, however, is involved and has a serious conflict of interest regarding WP:ARBR&I-related processes. Earlier in the year he acted on multiple occasions as apologist for the disruption-only account Akuri (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki). NE Ent did this pesistently when it was clear that there were problems with IP hopping before the account Akuri was registered. (There were two range blocks by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens.) After a while, it became clear that that account's only purpose was to continue a campaign of disruption through arbcom processes, indistinguishable from that of Captain Occam. The account was blocked indefinitely by arbitrators with user talk page access revoked. In this case Captain Occam actively lobbied Wer900 concerning his campaign and is doing so now. Please could NE Ent not intervene in what are very similar circumatances, while a response is being awaited from arbitrators? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Do us all a favor and let it go. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Since an arbitrator is apparently consulting arbcom over whether Wer900 was given permission to start an arbcom case on Captain Occam's behalf (an unbelievable claim), it seems sensible to wait for a response, rather than stifling discussion. Most wikipedians had the good fortune not to be dragged into an endless chain of meritless arbcom requests in the second half of 2012: most of them could be traced back to Captain Occam. So this is a good opportunity to nip things in the bud.
    Concerning the original complaint of Beeblebrox, I agree that there is consensus neither for an indefinite block nor for a one-way IBAN + stern warning. (Personally at this point I think a very stern warning might be all that is needed.) The previous section can be archived; but this subthread should be left open. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Mathsci, there's no consensus, and there's never going to be. Personally, I don't think Wer900 is being constructive at all, with their constant on-wiki abuse (they've got WO to vent, after all, so there's no need to constantly do so on-wiki) but I've refrained from voting as I don't know what the best solution would be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Not only that, those who keep reverting the close also seem to be involved. That smacks of "keep it open until we get the result we want." That's not a constructive solution, either. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


    Alternative Proposal: Proposed interaction ban of User: Wer900

    User:Wer900 is hereby warned in no uncertain terms that the community's patience is wearing very thin and that future accusatory disruption or battleground behavior is apt to be dealt with harshly. In addition, User:Wer900 is hereby subjected to an interaction ban with User:Beeblebrox: he is not to refer to Beeblebrox directly or indirectly in any thread on Misplaced Pages, to respond to comments made by Bebblebrox in any thread on Misplaced Pages, to communicate with Beeblebrox directly or indirectly on Misplaced Pages or by email, or to link to off-Wiki comments about Beeblebrox made by Wer900 or any other person. Violation of this unidirectional interaction ban shall bring a block of no less than 30 days. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    I believe it you read it again slowly, it does address these things. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well, Wer900 does not seem to have acknowledged that there are problems. So your proposal—a warning and a one-way IBAN with one particular administrator—does not seem to go far enough. Perhaps he might develop a little more self-awareness: that would certainly change things. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • No real need to include me I was offended neither by his comments on Jimbo's talk page, nor by his obsession with me here. Though I did find it amusing that I kept getting pinged in this thread by him when I had long since moved on and was, you know, writing articles. Resolute 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    If i thought an interaction ban would solve anything I would support it. And perhaps it would solve the problem with Wer harassing me, but in order to make it broad enough to stop all his unacceptable behaviors he would pretty much have to be banned from doing anything besides editing articles as everything else he does is disruptive. Of course I also strongly object to the proposer's comments in the above section, this is not a crazy-eyed lynch mob looking for a victim, Wer brought this upon himself entirely through his own actions. Only he has the capacity to demonstrate that he has some modicum of self control and can attempt to resolve whatever disputes he may feel he has in a more acceptable manner and he has shown absolutely no indication that he even believes there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Again, you are not being harassed. Bringing you up a few times as an example of an admin who can be seriously uncivil without consequences as contrasted with regular editors who are dealt with harshly for even minor acts of incivility is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Try to look at it from the recieving end. Let's say every week or so when you logged in you got an echo notification saying I mentioned you somewhere. Curious, you click on it only to discover that in the middle of a discussion of an issue in which you have zero involvement or interest there is a comment from me saying "TDA is the perfect example of a terrible contributor to Misplaced Pages and he should just leave." You might ignore that if it only happened once, but what if it was happening about once a week, yet I was not pursuing any sort of direct conversation with you or trying to engage in dispute resolution, just bringing you up once in a while to let everyone know that I think you are an asshole. (I don't think that actually, but just for purposes of this discussion let's say that's what it is) How would you feel? Remember now, you are not involved in these discussions. You are not even aware of them. Your name has not previously come up. We are not currently engaged in any sort of dispute or other discussion whatsoever. I did not invite you to participate, you just get an echo notification letting you know I am insulting you without provocation again. How would you feel? Like I was trying to solve a problem, or like I just wanted to let everyone, including you, get a once-a-week reminder that I think you are an asshole? That my friend, is indeed harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    No, actually it is not. Even if the complaints were not legitimate as they are here, someone talking shit about you every now and then to other people is not the same as harassment. You are cheapening the meaning of the term "harassment" by using it to describe this situation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    We believe in escalating blocks at Misplaced Pages, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    After writing that I checked. Wer has a completely clean block log. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Misplaced Pages space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Supporting newer proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

        In response to Beeblebrox's comment on my evidence—I do not hold a "grudge" against you. I am not following the usual psychology of AN/I dwellers. More than once have I seen your gross incompetence with the tools, and hence I have identified you several times as an example of a bad administrator.

        On my "obsession with Resolute", why is the AN/I madhouse not submitting him to a show trial for his not-so-veiled branding of Kiefer.Wolfowitz as an "attention whore", while I am receiving one for comments in response? Why does an administrator party to the dispute get special treatment?

        There isn't much more I have to say. Wer900talk 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

        • I see no need for Wer900 to have a unidirectional interaction ban in regard to myself. I cannot recall ever interacting with him in the past, and the give and take in this discussion is hardly sufficient to justify an i-ban. I continue to see the value in an indef block of his account, until he learns that framing discussions with other editors in terms of "show trials" and throwing around phrases like "gross incompetency" while simultaneously refusing to use the mechanism we have in place to address such alleged behaviorial problems (i.e. RFC/U and then ArbCom) is disruptive and not condoned here. His argument that his harrassment of Beeblebrox (yes, TDA, "harrassment" is indeed the correct word, stop being so unnecessarily pedantic) should be answered by a "probation" of everyone who has called him on his behavior is totally ridiculous, and a pretty good indication that W900 has absolutely no perspective on what he is doing. Such perspective can frequently be regained through an enforced time-out, which is why an indef block (which can be as short as it takes for W900 to regain his equilibrium) is the best option here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Nothing pedantic about it. You have no understanding of "harassment" if you think someone saying bad things about another person behind the person's back is harassment. When the girls at the salon gossip about Miss Susan and her promiscuous ways, they are not harassing her any more than any person talking shit behind your back is harassing you. This is just another instance of a long line of controlling egocentric personalities on Misplaced Pages feeling that any repeated criticism of them is harassment and said personalities tend to be the most malicious harassers in the bunch.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
          • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
            • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
              • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy. As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party. Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support - Makes much more sense!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support As it will keep Wer editing constructively, while staying away from potentially volatile comments. Herr Kommisar 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The suggestion has been made, presumably Wer900 has seen it. If you think he hasn't, drop a note on his talk page. No need to discuss this. Hatting
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    ArbCom?

    Wer900 may have exaggerated things and may have made accusations against some editors that cannot be fully supported. But many of the points he has made do have merit, they do point to a serious problem. That's why I think Wer900 should start an ArbCom case. That would also force him to fully support every accusation he makes. I would suggest Wer900 to immediately start such an ArbCom case before some Admin imposes a block based on the above discussion, he'll then have immunity against blocking for the issues discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    A curious suggestion given Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Beeblebrox remains a redlink. Also one where the absolutely best case scenario for Wer900 would be a pyhhric victory given their own conduct would also be evaluated. Resolute 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's up to Wer to decide what to do next, I think it's better to start an ArbCom case than to start a RFC/U because part of the community is already complaining about Wer's complaints. So, it seems to me that if Wer wishes to continue with his arguments against Beeblebrox and some other Admins, he should do so in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's better to wait with that until Wer starts an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints

    User:Wer900 is formally warned to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Any complaints or negative remarks aimed at another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior are to be limited to the following two types of venue: formal Misplaced Pages dispute resolution venues (but only when that editor is the subject of discussion); and/or direct dialogue with the other editor initiated at that editor's talk page (but only so long as that editor is willing to continue dialogue). Wer900 is also prohibited from casting aspersions on any group of Misplaced Pages editors, whether or not any individual editors are identifiable members of the group. An uninvolved administrator may block Wer900 without further warning for violations of this restriction.

    • Support as proposer. Allows Wer900 to continue constructive editing and to seek actual resolution of concerns with other editors' behavior; but addresses the concerns expressed above by other editors, and has broader effect than interaction bans with individual editors might. Note: "may" in last sentence of proposal is deliberate; borderline remarks might merit a warning/clarification by an admin rather than a block, so I wanted to leave room for discretion. alanyst 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support That's actually quite a smart proposal which effectively deals with the issue and does not prevent Wer900 from editing, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose This looks far too much like a unilateral gag order for my taste. I'm especially concerned by the "any group of Misplaced Pages editors," which could be "broadly construed" by someone looking to block the editor in question. It also presumes that Wer900 is the only editor with issues in the above discussion. I'm not sure that this has been determined yet. This comment is motivated by the repeated re-opening of the above complaint by individuals who could be seen as involved. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - I acknowledge having seen this. I prefer my language; this is a mousetrap with what seems to me overbroad parameters — "casting aspersions" — which will almost definitely result in a block. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose - My comment above was an edit conflict with Intothatdarkness, who correctly points out that this proposal would effectively silence a consistent critic of WP structures instead of limiting the blockable offense to further attacks on "another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior," which is the actual problem. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I am sympathetic to this concern. My intention with the wording about casting aspersions on groups was to avoid a loophole whereby Wer900 could continue the disruptive grousing but avoid sanctions by simply not naming names. If that restriction goes too far the other way, I am open to omitting it or weakening it somehow. alanyst 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose No restrictions on Wer are necessary, certainly not anything so mealy-mouthed. Get over it people. Move on.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose The accusations against Wer900 boil down to complaining about Beeblebrox, a lot. This is not hugely disruptive, but it's annoying. Wer900 should put a sock in it. If you sanction or warn for this, you should turn right around and do the same to any other editor who exhibits the same behavior—a good example would be Mathsci who constantly complains about banned user Occam. For the record, I oppose any sanction against either editor. It's just whining. StaniStani  19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment All the oppose votes so far appear to be by regular contributors to wikipediocracy. That includes Stanistani. Wer900 is the latest editor in a series associated with Captain Occam that has included Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Boothello, Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, Akuri, and Mors Martell. In May 2013 he agreed to start an arbcom case on behalf of Occam. Stanistani, who perhaps has his own agenda, has rejected those diffs as "fake". Even now Captain Occam is agitating off-wiki for the same thing. As a wikipediocracy admin, Stanistani could easily stop that if he wanted to. This mess started over there. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) There is no correspondence between Beeblebrox-Wer900 and Captain Occam-me. Occam is a highly disruptive arbcom banned user who, with Stanistani's acquiesence, has continued his disruption on wikipediocracy, including outing. Why compare him with Beeblebrox? After being recruited to proxy-edit for Occam, Wer900 made a number of grotesque and unprovoked statements about others. Why compare him with me? If Stanistani wants to make this kind of false comparison, please could he do so back in the Kingdom of the Trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment I have never contributed to the site in question, so trying to tar every oppose as "they're members of that bad place" simply won't work. What I do oppose are loosely-worded proposals that allow for the easy formation of lynch mobs. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - The thing that Wer needs to stop is "battleground behavior involving attacks upon any other editor's motives or qualities." I don't personally think this even needs to be spelled out (I just strongly hint at this in my language) — but if one were trying to spell it out in no uncertain terms, that's how I would spell it out. I also think that a formal one-way interaction ban between Wer and Beeblebrox is called for, seeing that he is the complainant. Carrite (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is unnecessary. The thread was already closed as 'no consensus' by an uninvolved admin, and I'm sure Wer is well aware that their future comments will be subject to close scrutiny from others. -- Hillbillyholiday 20:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • support: hopefully, it will get Wer to stop and consider his actions and comments. this does not prohibit him from commenting on RFC/U's or any of the notice boards ( and if it does, it need to be rephrased). also does not prohibit content discussion on talk pages. it only prohibits him from making comments that could reasonable be interpreted as personal attacks or harassment. -- Aunva6 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support, especially since it is not just a question of what Wer has said about Beebelbrox, but part of a larger pattern of behavior. The admonition to limit complaints about other editors to only the proper venues is a very good one for anybody, not just Wer. However, that said, it's painfully obvious to me that ANI is incapable of effecting these kinds of proposals, and that the broader issue of aspersion-casting is going to wind up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support per IRWolfie- and Tryptofish. Wer900 needs to get back to content editing and stop making the problematic comments that led to this report. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support An effective, sensible, and pretty watered down compromise. I'm amazed that anyone is still against this. This sort of nonsense is why our one of our core policies has turned into an unenforceable empty promise. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment. We should all stick to this, it's just that we usually don't enforce violations of this, because it's not always clear what is a violation and what not. So, I would be in favor of first asking Wer900 if he is willing to voluntarily stick to this, which in practice means that he will not persue his arguments against Beeblebrox in the way he has been doing. The problem with imposing this restriction on him is that it could be used, say 4 years from now in some completely unrelated issue where he would legitimately raise a problem on e.g. Jimbo's page. Take e.g. Sceptre's recent blocks for posting on Jimbo's page even when Jimbo said that she should not have been blocked for bringing a problem to his attention. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Anti -religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits

    I regret feeling the need to come here re a user,Greengrounds, who has in the last couple of days, turned his attention to various articles on Jesus and has made it quite clear in numerous talk page postings that he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to fight for the truth. He started off by altering the lead of Historicity of Jesus, , and when this was reverted he reverted it straight back again with no discussion. He has appeared on the talkpage of the user who did that asking him if he does not realise that the source for information about Jesus, the Bible, says "he flew in the air like a zombie spaghetti monster" . He removed a whole properly sourced section of the article "Historicity of Jesus" because he didn't like the subject header, with no discussion on the talk page . He changed the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Historicity of Jesus, a sentence that has been arrived at after years of discussion from "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", ,ignoring an edit notice requesting that changes not be made to the lead without discussion on the talkpage and consensus achieved first. He insists on inserting a tendentious and ungrammatical section at the beginning of the article - Ehrman lays out a the framework that historians can only establish what probably,and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened explaining that miracles cannot happen when the article does not discuss miracles. Just in the last few minutes, he reverted another article Christ Myth Theory,to a version from some time ago, with the edit summary "reverted to older version before apologists erased the whole article. It is for showing the theories, not for showing mainstream scholarly opinion" undoing the entire, painstaking, excellent revision of the article undertaken only a few days ago by User PiCo and has slapped neutrality tags all over both articles. There is much, much more, I will supply further diffs if requested, this is only a little taste of his activities altering articles over the last two days. On talk pages, he has repeatedly made it clear that he is on a mission to proclaim the truth that the Bible states that Jesus was a "flying space zombie" , an expression he is very fond of and uses over and over, and accuses any one who challenges him about anything of being a Christian apologist . Once again, this is a mere sampling of his talk page activities and he has made it quite clear that he is only just beginning . I have tried to staunch the flow of his frenzied tendentious editing of these articles to some extent but have not got the time or energy to keep doing it, something needs to be done to put at least a temporary halt, or slowing down, of this, it is turning these articles into disaster areas. I am not necessarily requesting blocks or bans right now, I would at least like an admin to explain WP policies and guidelines to him (I assume it is a him) and I feel we need to undo the damage he has done to these articles and prevent any more.Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

    Smeat, you do not regret coming here to plaster me. This is not the first time you have done this to an editor you don't get along with.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    The wiki on the christ myth theory was decimated by Pico, a move he did right befre he ritired that user name. sMeat has undone my previous edits on that article where I restored some of the 60,000 letters pico erased without discussion. So I restored to an edit from before retired user Pico erased most of the article. The material removed by pico and smeat (by way of her own reversions) was well referenced and remvoed without discussion or good reason.
    The lead on wiki on the historicity of jesus was not changed in a way that changed the citation, but was a citation from the same author which presents the undisputable fact (amongst scholarly historians) that jesus life is infact enshrouded by myth. No historian beleives the resurrection actually took place, and that is why it was worth mentioning. To my own credit I have made some bad edits that have been reverted with good reason, and those I left alone. But please while your looking at my edits, please look at Smeat's edits as well. Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page, and right down to this very article she brought up here. She is not getting her way, and she's mad. That's all this is. Please see the talk page on Historicity of Jesus you will see how I have been engaging and discussing with other users, some of them agree with me, and there has already been posts on that page pertaining to the POV. I discussed the NPOV tags before I put them in. See this post on the talk page: Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Obnoxiously_point_of_view. Smeat had many opportunity to object, and as you can see, I am not the one who started the discussion, nor am I the only one who has an issue with the article as is. Also, this user Smeat seems out to get me. She has already started grievances with other senior editors. Seems more like the behavour of someone who is mad because there are people on Misplaced Pages who have different evidence to present than what she is used to seeing. But every edit I have made has been from scholarly peer reviewed sources, sources already being used and accepted by smeat with no problem... that is, until she doesn't like what they have to say. Other than the one edit on Tacitus, which smeat was actually right about, and I backed off on that one. As you can see, I am not being unreasonable, it is just a case where one user is being a squeaky wheel trying to save face and get her way. --Greengrounds (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    For the further information of administrators, Editor Greengrounds entered similar conflicts with longstanding editors in relation to Religious views of Adolf Hitler and to a lesser extent Catholic Church and Nazi Germany a few months ago, leading to this request for comment by User:Hcc01. Ozhistory (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    "Since her own style of bullying and POV pushing is quite evident in her lack of gathering consensus or using the talk page" Talk pages where I have had many discussion with Greengrounds over the last two days.Smeat75 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think Greengrounds is actually an anti-religious POV pusher. I think he is merely trying to counter what he perceives as bias, not trying to impose his own view on others. And though he makes some good points, he is making them badly and ignoring normal Misplaced Pages procedures and guidelines. That does qualify his edits as disruptive and it needs to stop. I think a warning and an offer of coaching would be appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    GG said, I thought that was common knowledge. Well it is, but not amongst Misplaced Pages's christian apologetics community. I'd say that rather than being anti-religious, he would seem to be more anti-Christian. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    These are preposterous accusations to make against Smeat75. We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy. Greengrounds may or may not have the capacity to contribute constructively, but the first step would be to willingly stop crusading and proceed with more encyclopedic detachment. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Cynwolfe. Some of Greengrounds edits are proper, correct, and needed. I've personnally seen many edits (and he and I seem to follow the same Christian Wiki pages) that I agreed with a thought "now why didn't I see that..."
    That being said, his actions and words all speak to having a huge axe to grind against some editors (I specifically remember him calling out PiCo as a problem which I thought was laughable considering I always saw him as a middle of the road voice for reason) and against Christianity in general. He does this by sometimes wholesale changes and then challenges all desenters as "Christian Apologists". At the very least he needs to tone down his clear bias & non-NPOV against Christianity and instead focus on gaining concensus for his revisions. Because right now there is NONE - he comes in, ticks everyone off, and then claims to be the injured party on Talk. You don't get anything done that way. Another point is that Smeat75 only captured a few of the pages this is simultaneously happening on - there are others with Miracles of Jesus & Tacitus on Christ‎ being just two of them. Ckruschke (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
    His conduct certainly indicates some serious problems being able to contribute in a non-disruptive way. I'm not sure I would necessarily support an edit restriction yet, neither am I sure I would oppose it. But at the very least I believe an extremely strong warning is called for. The recent, rather ridiculous, claims against PiCo, one of the few editors I personally trust to deal with contentious material regarding Christianity, speaks volumes to me about Greengrounds' possible very problematic views, and his ability to conduct himself in accord with policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    A fairly unimportant point about the thread title - there was already a thread "Religious POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits" so rather than trying to think up a section header I just put "Anti-" in front of that one.I don't know if he is really anti-religious, I do know that he is not editing from a neutral point of view and is causing disruption, and as Ckruschke says, to more articles than I mentioned in my first post here, I did not want to produce a wall of text.17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    I had already warned him once and the second time told him to read the ANI notice about User:Davidbena, saying that if he does not take heed from it I will begin an ANI notice as "Atheistic POV-pusher engaged in disruptive edits". User:Greengrounds and User:Davidbena are mirror images of each other, one thinks that the Bible is totally worthless and the other thinks the Bible is infallible and they both push such POVs. User:Davidbena said he understood that his behavior was problematic, and I hope he tries to better his ways. If we get User:Greengrounds to admit that much, it would be a progress. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Watching the debates with User:Greengrounds has become hilarious. He displays the sort of nonchalance like that displayed by William Foster from Falling Down who only when getting close to his demise is considering the possibility that he was the bad guy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Comment Um, the quote you linked to is from me, not him. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    I know. Sorry if it wasn't clear - must have been an error in my punctuation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Support; I think a topic ban on the above listed articles is Religious views of Adolf Hitler, Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, Historicity of Jesus is more than justified, though Greengrounds has also been actively seeking to revise Jesus, Historical Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, and Christ myth theory among others. As other editors have said across different talk pages, not every point Greengrounds raises is invalid, but the frantic rate of his interventions is not conducive to good editing, and the disrespect he is showing to multiple editors, and disregard for multiple wikipedia policies is highly disruptive.Ozhistory (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    Firstly, what was irrational about providing a Bart Ehrman reference saying that historians don't actually think the resurrection of Jesus happened? That is as rational of a response to support a claim as I could get, no? Ehrman is an expert, a scholar and is already being used widely to set the tone of the article which states a quote from ehrman that All scholars of antiquity think jesus existed. The other half of that statement really is that no scholars of antiquity think jesus was resurrected from the dead. So who is exhibiting the POV bias here? Is me or you and the two or three other editors that seem to have a problem? Secondly, two users have already come out saying that I am not POV pushing. I have modified my behaviour already in regards to using people's talk pages the wrong way. Just because I think that Jesus is no more than a mortal man, and I'm trying to introduce scholarly opinion (which overwhelmingly supports this.)into the articles which reflects this. It seems to me there are only two or three people (smeat being the main one) who are taking Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles and who are undoing people's edits without using the talk page. Smeat has been involved in getting other users banned who disagree with her, on the same articles, and she undoes their edits without using the talk page just putting in the comments undoing so and so's "disruptive edits" here's an example of her past behaviour with other editors:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514

    Here are some examples of her comments: Greengrounds, you are making very contentious changes, it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", that is totally non neutral POV and is not supported by the sources cited. You ignored the edit notice that comes up whenever anyone tries to alter that section,which is not to say that no one must ever alter it, but it does need to be discussed on this talk page and consensus arrived at first. I have changed it back to a neutral statement (which was arrived at after years of discussion).Smeat75 (talk)

    The reference she is referring to is one supported by Ehrman, and the citation showed this. This is Ehrman's opinion, the same guy who's opinion is being used to say "all scholars agree jesus existed". Her exception to this comment is because of her own Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. From a neutral, secular, non christian POV Jesus' life is buried in myth in legend. This is the view supported by mainstream scholarly opinion from a historical view. The view that jesus is not surrounded in myth, is the view of fundamentalist Christians, is encyclopedic, and is NON NEUTRAL POV pushing. Greengrounds (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Of course I did not mean "it is unacceptable to say "the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend" in conversation, or in other "real life" context, or on wikipedia as a direct quote, but that it was unacceptable for the article to say that instead of what Greengrounds changed it from - altering "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" to "Apart from fundamentalist Christians, all experts agree the Jesus of the Bible is buried in myth and legend", , with no discussion first, when an edit notice actually appears whenever anyone starts to edit that sentence specifically asking any change to it to be discussed on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    I must clarify and apologise to a certain extent as I see that he did not delete "virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed", he added the "buried in myth and legend" sentence before that one but the sources cited still do not say "buried in myth and legend".Smeat75 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    As has been pointed out here, but I was not aware of, Greengrounds has been engaged in very combative conflicts with editors on other pages, including Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where another editor left this comment back in May : "perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate."Smeat75 (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Greengrounds is now attempting to portray Smeat75 as a "lone ranger" objecting to his behaviour. This not the case, and though I am not overly familiar with Smeat75's record, he/she deserves to be defended against this false portrayal. Far from Smeat and "one or two others" complaining, I personally have never seen such a storm of editors challenging one editor's behaviour across multiple articles in such a small space of time. Greengrounds ran a similar "persecution" line of defence when challenged by multiple users for his interventions on Religious views of Adolf Hitler, where he started an edit war in April (wanting to lead that article with "Adolf Hitler was devout Catholic") and was soon after warned by user:Deadbeef: "stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Deadbeef (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)" As editor User:Hcc01 submitted in his Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Greengrounds of 1 June "Greengrounds' entire talk page is awash with attempts to resolve" disputes. That comment still holds - only more so. Ozhistory (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not only that, but he began to hatch down another decent article, see and , the later edit with the preposterous reason that reliable sources are not allowed to do OR:Synthesis. I think the world has been warned enough about religious fundamentalism, now we should consider warning it of atheistic fundamentalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, rather than slowing down his hectic pace of contentious changes to a whole range of articles, Greengrounds is expanding to new articles, including Josephus on Jesus where he has said on the talk page that he wants to remove any material cited to any theologian because theology is Pseudo-scholarship. Greengrounds has already received a warning from an admin, now I think some intervention by an admin is needed, so as others above have called for a topic ban, I support a topic ban for Greengrounds to cover Christianity, broadly construed. If there is not consensus for that, I think he should be blocked for twenty-four or forty-eight hours to prevent further disruption to a whole range of articles and see if he can return in a more collaborative frame of mind.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, I have to agree with Smeat75 - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Greengrounds, moving on to Historicity of Jesus with the demand that anything sourced to a theologian must be removed "We can't use John Painter as a source here. He is a theologian not a historian" and deleting material from the article Relationship between religion and science for no other reason than that it quotes an archbishop , edit summary "removed soap boxing statement by Habgood. This is not a place for preaching. Habgood should be removed entirely. He's an archbishop, not a scholar". I note that on this thread there has not been a single comment from any editor except Greengrounds attempting to defend his edits or behaviour and three editors,including me, have supported Kudpung, an admin I believe, in calling for a topic ban. Time for action in my opinion, what's the point of not dealing with this disruption and letting it continue?Smeat75 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    User:Ozhistory is guilty of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#wikihounding. He has followed me from another dispute. He follows me from talk page to talk page, denouncing my edits, good faith and ethics and posts links to this board He has also been guilty of Misplaced Pages:Edit warring in the past, as witnessed by User:Deadbeef and is not a good member of Misplaced Pages he has also been accused of Christian POV pushing. User:Smeat75 has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. She is warlike in her reverts, comments and talk page contributions. To a lesser extent than Ozhistory, she has been guilty of wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding having followed me to more than one talk page and posting links to this board. Not only that, user:Smeat75 is guilty of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles with a small group of others especially on JesusHistorical JesusHistoricity of JesusChrist myth theory. Just my two bits on them. And for my part, I am not a revert king or queen like others, I make my edits, provide sourcing and reasons, and use the talk pages. I do not personally attack users, though I have been guilty of it twice. Since this post was made about me, I have not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory who has been wikihounding me. It't time for you to take this down and everyone go about their Misplaced Pages editing. Use those talk pages, people. And "Reverted disruptive edit by greengrounds won't cut it." And Smeat's and others getting offended because I don't hold the never take thy lord's name in vain stuff literally has nothing to do with Wiki policy. It has more to do with Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEYOU
    And you know what else, I'm a NEUTRAL POV PUSHER, not an Atheist POV pusher. If I see something that is non-neutral POV, like so many religious articles are, I will flag it, and I will make edits to try and fix it. AFIK that's what NPOV tags are for.Greengrounds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    You know, I honestly don't think anyone other than you would come to the same conclusion. Your previous comments indicate a rather amusing statement that because students of early Christianity are often Christian, that they can't be counted as neutral reliable sources, I am aware of no policy or guideline which supports such a contention. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    ] has a history of bringing other non religious editors to trial here on this noticeboard. This is the first AN/I discussion I have ever initiated though I have participated others.Smeat75 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    Greengrounds above says I have "been guilty of Misplaced Pages:Edit warring". The solitary occasion where I was linked to an edit war in four years was over Greedngrounds attempt to rewrite the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page to describe Adolf Hitler as a "devout Catholic" and delete extensive sourced material, leading to this request for comment by another user. His statement above that I have been accused of Christian POV presumably again refers to his own interactions with me, where he has called me a "Christian apologist" (but then this is an accusation he has directed against most every editor involved in the above discussion). His claim that he has "not had any complaints other than from Ozhistory" is bizarre in light of the lengthy dissertations from multiple editors above and on every talk page on which he has been active over the last week. A quick viewing oh his talk page reveals that user:John Carter; user: Tgeorgescu and user:Smeat75 have all complained directly to him since 29 August. This is not to begin to count those who have complained above, or complained on the talk pages of the articles he is attempting to re-write. His accusation that I have been "wikihounding" him apparently refers to my participation on this thread, and advice to the editors at Talk:Relationship between religion and science that this thread existed, following contentious edits by him on that page. Ozhistory (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - I note that this thread has already had two !votes for and 1 !vote against a topic ban. If there is an intention of using this thread to discuss such issues, I think creating a separate subsection to specifically deal with it is probably a good idea. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    Ozhistory (talk) Funny you should bring up the Hitler article, the one that you had rewritten so that the opening line is "Hitler was an Atheist". But your wikihounding is a little more rampant than you'd care to show, isn't it? And your previous edit warring, justify it however you want, but It is still edit warring, and an admin did warn you about it, remember? He warned both of us.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571040206 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science&diff=prev&oldid=571026956 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=570470133

    wikipedia:harassment#wikihounding Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors,CHECK and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contributeCHECK, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their workCHECK. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.CheckGreengrounds (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Martijn Meijering (talk) I'd be open to coaching if you know someone or have your own regimenGreengrounds (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    (e-c with Martijn Meijering) Please read WP:HA#NOT, as well. It is generally considered acceptable, and in some cases even encouraged, for one editor who sees a consistent pattern of misconduct in a group of articles they watch to see if the same problematic conduct is exhibited elsewhere. While, to the editor engaging in the problematic edits that might appear to be harassing, WP:AGF also has to be considered. Basically, Greengrounds, for the almost paranoic insinuation you give above, and I quote, "Only for virtuos reasons, not to annoy or distress, right? it would be more or less incumbent of you to present some real evidence, which you have to date not presented. That being the case, the comment above could perhaps reasonably be seen as being itself a form of personal attack as per WP:NPA, and it really does not help your case in any way for you to engage in such unsupported insinuations or attacks. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    I would like to return to a comment Cynwolfe made earlier in this thread - "We need as a community to find a better way to deal with these kinds of situations before they become cesspools that drain time and energy." Somebody who goes barging into several different pages almost simultaneously proclaiming that the Bible says Jesus was a zombie spaghetti monster or became a space zombie and whose response to anyone who challenges him about anything is "let me guess, you're a Christian, right?" is clearly, clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so juvenile, so presumptuous, is it any wonder that serious actual scholars do not spend their time on wikipedia, who wants to deal with that sort of childishness all the time? User History 2007 and User PiCo, invaluable editors in this area, recently both retired for the specific reason, so I am told,, that they got fed up with constant POV pushers. This is a terrible loss to the project. The procedures you have to go through to try to do something about these kinds of editors are time consuming, drag out for weeks or months or years, and wear patience to the bone. I don't see any reason why it should be tolerated at all past one warning, which Greengrounds has already had.Smeat75 ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    List of persistent breaches over several months

    Thank you John Carter. Greengrounds is in breach of multiple policies. Greengrounds has repeatedly attacked me personally for challenging his contentious edits, and you have correctly identified his accusation against myself and two other editors of wikipedia as a personal attack per WP:HA#NOT. I propose to list a few of the worst examples of Greengrounds' breaches below, and if other editors could add to the list with edits they have noted so that we have a maximum clarity and evidence, and then return then place there comments on the proposed topic ban against Greengrounds in the next subsection. The following list is not exhaustive. Please expand as appropriate (but keep it brief and support with link):

    Personal attacks
    • Calling an editor 'truly retarded' @19:10, 22 April 2013 for querying an edit
    • He received an admin warning and ban threat for personal attacks ] @ 21:22, 22 April 2013.
    • But a month later he called an editor a because the editor requested that he provide "good sources that have survived peer review". This one may well take the cake: " If you can't handle reality (which you can't if you deny the Christian link to the killing of 6 million Jews), then of course you will be offended when reality bites you in the butt. You go around acting like a hypocrite, from time to time you will get called one." @ 09:29, 29 May 2013
    • ]
    • ]
    • Another admin warning 29 August
    • Left an edit summary calling me "lazy and disruptive" 5 September 2013
    • He keeps calling me "meat" - see edit summaries ,, just two examples, he does it all the time, even though I pointed out to him days ago that my user name is not meat , a trivial point, but I believe he does it to be insulting.Smeat75 (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Use of unreliable sources
    Breaking up comments on talk pages (ie an action that could be considered vandalism
    Deletion of reliably sourced content
    • ]
    • ]
    NPOV
    • Greengrounds is embarking on a campaign to remove any material in two different articles sourced to a book published by an academic press, "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition", published by University of South Carolina, by NT scholar and theologian John Painter because, Greengrounds says, theologians are liars -" Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done." - an argument about on the same level as the Bible says that Jesus was a "zombie spaghetti monster." He hasn't made any changes to the article texts yet, to give him credit, he does appear to be discussing proposed contentious changes on talk pages first, but his bias and pov could not be more obvious.Smeat75 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually I realised that what I said about Greengrounds not removing material based on Painter from articles is not true, he did just that on the Historicity of Jesus article with the edit summary "Removed "John Painter" references. A theologian is not a historian please see Misplaced Pages FRINGE sourcing" but it was restored by other editors (not me). Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Four editors have told him on the talk page of the Josephus on Jesus article that there is no reason to remove material sourced to the theologian John Painter, just for the reason that Painter is a theologian, but he has just once again removed material from the article sourced to Painter with an edit summary "Removed Painter on "what Josephus meant" Painter is not qualified to make that assessment' and left a comment on the talk page rejecting what four editors said -"Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity." It is really contemptuous of other editors and WP policy.Smeat75 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
            • So I put back the material Greengrounds deleted from Josephus on Jesus, and of course, he just took it straight out again, with further ravings on the talk page about how theologians are only qualified to discuss "zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters" .WP guidelines say not to edit war but seek consensus on the talk page, what are you supposed to do in a case like this where rational discussion is impossible? I wish I didn't think it was important, but Josephus on Jesus is a crucial subject for study of historical Jesus, and wikipedia comes up first on most searches for information, unfortunately (I am starting to think).Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Removed the entire content of an article

    Greengrounds tonight removed the entire content of an article, references and all, and blanked the whole page except for the sentence "Removed article. See Misplaced Pages Policies on Sourcing. A German website is not proper sourcing. Also please see Misplaced Pages policy on Notability. An obscure christian group is not notable." Smeat75 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Harassment of editors, deletion of articles and general disruption

    Greengrounds has now become a wikihound: see here. Surely, in view of his long record, this is a final straw?

    Presumably because of my involvement on this wikithread, and under the misapprehension that I had written them all, Greengrounds is attempting to delete a series of articles related to Christian resistance to Nazi Germany: German Catholics’ Peace Association‎ (which also appears on the German and French wikis, but which Greenground completely deleted without any discussion - a move which was fortunately reverted by Admin user:Wtmitchell); Max Josef Metzger (an article which has existed since 2007 and appears on 4 other language wikis); Gabriel Piguet (3 other languages); Johannes Prassek (also appearing in 3 other languages); Gerhard Hirschfelder‎ (4 other languages); and Giuseppe Girotti (3 other languages). These are mostly start class or early stage articles needing further improvement. Apparently unaware of its meaning, Greengrounds has also repeatedly deleted the clearly defined honorific term "The Blessed" from these articles on the basis that it is Weaslewording!

    He also appears to think the style "the venerable" is "weasel wording" and removed it from the article on Girotti. I noticed a query on the talk page of Saint Sebastian "Do athletes really regularly carry his relics?...I think the word relic is being misued in the article." referring to an unsourced statement in the lead of the article that athletes "often wear Sebastian's relics", so I removed it, but Greengrounds put it back in, I am sure only because it was me who had amended the lead, with the edit summary "Undid disruptive edit by Smeat75 (talk) easily varifiable uncited material need not be deleted. Try helping. Find a source. It was soooo easy" . I am not sure if he really does not know what the terms "relics", "the Blessed" and "the Venerable" mean, or if he is just undoing edits ozhistory and I have made out of a battleground mentality.Smeat75 (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Votes/discussion for topic ban of Greengrounds

    Please vote here so that we can all keep track of the state of play. Please be brief.

    Hmm, the people taking part in discussion here are the same people as on the Talk pages of the articles in question. I don't know what the rules say, but it doesn't seem right that we should have a vote of just involved editors. Maybe the involved editors (myself included) shouldn't even be voting at all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's the MO of wiki article owners, and it is the reason that WIKI is loosing editors en masse. A little group doesn't like what I'm doing, and since I have been able to get consensus for my propositions, (which they write off as fringe editors of they don't value their opinions because it's a new editor), and their attempts at blocking all of my edits have been unsuccessful, since as I said I have been able to get some consensus. There are 1800 Watchers of the jesus pagewatcher, 228 wathers of "historical Jesus, and 311 watchers, the list goes on and this small group is offended because they can't get consensus to block all of my edits, so they'd rather try and slander and ban users. This is the behaviour that makes Misplaced Pages lose editors, and turns Misplaced Pages into a battleground. "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized."Greengrounds (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    It is meaningless to suggest that the number of people watching an article equates to a number of editors with a particular bias. There are 1,114 people watching the Cat article too. What motive are you assigning to them? Many editors use the setting to automatically add a page to their watch list whenever they edit a page, without necessarily having any intention of ever actually returning to edit the page. The claim that Misplaced Pages is 'losing editors en masse', or that they are doing so for the reason you've suggested, is also unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    Pretty straightforward that if thousands of people are watching an article and an editor is making edits, and only two or three people are having issues, that those two or three people don't necessarily reflect the majority view of the watchers.Greengrounds (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Topic ban

    • Oppose for now, I think a stern warning, preferably combined with an offer of coaching, should be given first. The warning should spell out that the next step would indeed be a topic ban. Martijn Meijering
    • Oppose agree with what Martijn Meijering says and more generally, in my experience, anyone who tries to contest a strong pro-Christian pov on articles gets a rough time - ozhistory slagged me off as a negative editor and told a friend he/she would support 'any action' to get me banned or blocked for ages, - I don't think greengrounds methods or arguments are always sound by any means , but then who is without sin. Cerainly not Ozhistory imo. Sayerslle (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • "The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster"- this is your idea of contesting a strong Christian pov? Accept that the Bible says Jesus "became a space zombie", or you must be a Christian pov pusher, it is ridiculous.Smeat75 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Well said Smeat75. As to what Sayerslle says of me, the precise quote from me to user:Integrityandhonesty was that Sayerslle was: "generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often." So the accusation that I said I would support "any action to get him banned or blocked for ages" is quite inaccurate. But this is a digression. Ozhistory (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I can see why you'd try and smear another user because of his talk page. I guess that's why you really see the importance of keeping your talk page clean by Removing ADMIN warnings from your own talk page. Anyone can edit their talk page, but it's really un-wiki like. Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway? Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate.Greengrounds (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Greengrounds, you are making more false allegations and topping these off with further personal attack! Disgraceful conduct. Firstly: " Remember when we agreed not to edit the lead, but you went ahead and did it anyway". No such agreement was reached, proof of this is confirmed by admin Deadbeef's explanation at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard of , wherein he says: "I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft... However, it was never fully agreed upon...". I demand an apology and retraction. Furthermore, you again insinuate that I have been involved in more than one edit war, when in fact there was only one - and that was over your conduct on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Finally - you are again responding to questioning of your conduct with a personal attack: "Your holier than thou attitude is not appropriate". At which point in this process will you modify your behaviour?" Editors please note, despite the good efforts here to encourage him to modify his behaviour, this editor continues to employ personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Ozhistory, you erased your history of edit warring with me from your talk page, and then accused another user for having too many complaints on his talk page. As for me apologizing to you... here goes. I'm sorry that you don't understand that when an admin writes a paragraph and says if you disagree with this, please speak up about it. And then I said no, I agree it's good. And you said nothing. And then continued to edit the lead unilaterally without discussion on the talk page. I'm sorry that you don't get what's wrong with all of that.Greengrounds (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support I am completely uninvolved, not a Christian, and agree this user has a serious problem playing well with others. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose From what I've seen of him he is open to reasoning and sources when approached in discussion. I think he should perhaps be reminded not to break WP:POINT, to stick to reliable sources and not to describe editors (or the rest of the world) as divided into "pro" and "anti" religion, but give a nuanced and fair descrition of the relation between science and religion. I think he is able to follow that if given a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi User:Maunus, could I trouble you to provide evidence of this reasonableness by way of a link? Are you sure it wasn't an example of incoherence, where he argues one point for a moment then switches to another contradictory position in short order? This I have seen - "reasonableness", not so much.Ozhistory (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose pretty much as per Martijn Meijering above, particularly if he shows a willingness to take part in coaching, and maybe told rather clearly to tone down the rhetoric a little. The topic of "science and religion" is a pretty complex one, with, if I remember right, a two volume encyclopedia about it, and several journals. If we had someone willing to work on developing content related to this topic, and this editor seems to maybe be interested in that broad field, I could see him becoming a very valuable editor. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    John Carter, could you clarify, are you opposing a topic ban for Greengrounds on any topic, or just on Science and Religion?Smeat75 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    I oppose the proposed topic ban on religion, while noting that, as Manus said above, he may be particularly useful in the field of science and religion, which is honestly, hard to differentiate clearly from the broader religion field. But, like I implied, if he doesn't take part in coaching, or tone down the rhetoric, I think there is a very real chance he will be back shortly, and I am far from convinced that I would not be less lenient then. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    Diversity of views is not an excuse for disruptive editing. The needlessly offensive comments are the issue here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support echo Martijn Meijering's thoughts. Considering all but one of his edits have been in the past 4 months and more than half were made in the last 10 days, seems to me he has a serious axe to grind which is "brand new" to him or something else is going on. Ckruschke (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
    • Support. Greengrounds seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him does so on religious grounds--what else is "If you don't agree with us, we'll kick you out, we won't allow you to edit, and if you take the lord's name in vain, this is heresy and you will be apostatized." supposed to mean? (And why is that in quotes, anyway--who's he quoting?) That attitude is bad for talk page dynamics. But this anti-religious attitude extends to sources, also--on Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Greengrounds is arguing that one of the sources needs to be removed from the article on the grounds that the author is a theologian, so he can't be an authority on history (although first Greengrounds said that theology is pseudoscholarship). Of course, one thing that theologians do is study the history of religions, so it's entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, to use them as sources in articles on religious history. So my suggestion is that Greengrounds avoid editing articles about Christianity until he gets a better grasp of how Misplaced Pages works, and until he has better familiarity with academic work on the topics he's interested in. --Akhilleus (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support; had been going to support this or similar a few days ago, but maybe thought it might be a bit much, but now i have to, if based on nothing other than today's disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project; an editor more interested in being insulting and childish than cooperative needs some help, and staying away from this particular area may help him learn. We can but hope. Cheers, Lindsay 10:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support. I have to agree with Akhilleus's assessment above. Either G lacks the competence to weigh sources, or G is pushing a POV. If there's another explanation, I'm open to hearing it, but even after the concerns raised on this page, today G has called Smeat75 a "lazy, disruptive editor" and "Meat" (edit summary and post, so not a typo). I consider that level of deliberate incivility worth a short-term block. Editors who want to give G other options should point to diffs where G has given any indication that a second chance would be used constructively: I certainly don't find that in the shrieking about apostasy at the top of this section, the obsession with characterizing other editors' motives, the choice of a narrow set of articles to edit, the desire to arbitrarily exclude the views of scholars who meet RS standards, and the agenda of debunking (neutrality is not achieved through a cacophony of POVs). All together, it quacks like a personal truth quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • In looking at this further, today's serial PRODs and this gratuitous, taunting post to a user talk page continue to indicate agenda-driven editing that would support the topic ban (and in my opinion underscore the usefulness of a short-term block for disruption and incivility). Cynwolfe (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    From what I can see above there are 11 who support a topic ban, and 5, including me, who do not favor a topic ban at this time. I also note that, given the subsequent behavior detailed below, I am experiencing very serious doubts about that earlier expressed opposition on my part, which would make it now more like 11 for, 4 against, and 1, me, now leaning a little for. The recent actions indicated below to my eyes seriously raise questions about whether there is any real chance the editor involved is willing to improve his conduct, and that is a very serious concern. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Resolution?

    So who takes responsibility at this point? The breaches continue, and I and others are being by this rogue editor for participating in this thread. I am not at all familiar with this process, so I am not sure how it would move to a topic ban (which the clear majority, including various admins, support above). I note that user:Martijn Meijering and user:John Carter and a couple of others wrote above that they opposed a topic ban only "for now", but have noted poor behaviour on a wide scale. Can I ask then, in light of the last few days of ongoing breaches, if they are still opposed to some sort of block or topic ban? Elsewhere, new editors such as User:Arxiloxos have been reverting Greenground's disruptive edits. My feeling is that the pattern and biases of this editor are so ingrained that he will not change - unless he is a sixteen year old or some such thing (which would explain much of his poor grammar, spelling, grasp of the subject matter and general incoherence), and in which case he may mature with age. At any rate, the consensus is clearly that he is a disruptive presence, and only a few have argued to give him time to change before a ban. It seems obvious that he should be banned from Christianity related articles, as these are the target of an especial loathing from him. But to be fair to wikipedia, I think that should be extended to cover any religious articles - at least for a period. Given that I remain the target of his harassment, a ban could not come soon enough as far as I am concerned, but I would be grateful if participating admins (User:Kudpung, User:Akhilleus etc) can advise on how this would be brought about? Ozhistory (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Basically, you wait until an ininvolved admin takes notice of this thread and decides that s/he wants to do something about it, or until the thread dies out from lack of activity. If the thread gets archived, you then decide whether you want to try another venue (e.g. Arbcom, since a user RfC has already been conducted on Greengrounds). Dealing with a disruptive user is a haphazard and frequently disappointing process. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    So there's a preponderance of evidence, almost universal support from numerous editors that at the very least a short term subject block is needed, and this is probably going to die on the vine because we can't get an admin to act. Remind me not to get involved in one of these again... Ckruschke (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
    It will only "die on the vine" if conversation basically dies off enough for it to be automatically archived, and the best way to ensure that don't happen is just to keep the threads going. If there is enough activity, sooner or later, probably over the weekend, someone uninvolved will have the time and inclination to act on it. ALthough I do regret the archiving of the thread which had several !votes regarding another editor, that being the thread whose title caused the renaming of this dicussion. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, Ckruschke, what more is needed to make someone who can do something take some action?Smeat75 (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)

    • I know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments (diff), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. personal attacks). He uses the term five times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure (Cdtew) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is

    "Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.

    When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it.", with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want". Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism.
    Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there is ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of WP:FOUR around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    ?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed  09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Facepalm Facepalm - I have seen some stupidity over at WP:FOUR but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? AutomaticStrikeout () 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's a question for you, AS. What's with assuming bad faith? Panther and Cdtew only began to be involved with the discussion after Tony's last trip to ANI, and neither seem to be specifically targetting Tony. They want to reach a community consensus, as required by policy, and not have any individual with ownership issues abuse other editors for sport. I don't think either have a personal grudge against Tony, and if (for instance) I were in Tony's position and acting as Tony has acted they would still act the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Misplaced Pages, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments on his talk several days ago). This occurred thereafter. Cdtew (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . Cdtew (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Support topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. AN link, TTT talk page link. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am blocking TTT for a further 48 hours. Bencherlite 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse block I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - TP 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse block I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over WP:FOUR is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). Nick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Observation – the only reason I know TTT's race is because Crisco has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at WT:FOUR. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. EdChem (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @EdChem: First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. Cdtew (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @Cdtew:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @EdChem:: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @Crisco 1492:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @EdChem:: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco: I maintain that your decision to nominate was poor, having come after the racism accusation just makes it worse. Regarding behaviour, I did not refer to Cdtew, I referred to you - and your actions have not seemed dispassionate to me, they have seemed partisan and TTT is far from the only one who looks bad. TTT has acted foolishly and made an unjustifed accusation and deserves sanction, but it is sad to see that his actions are concealing from notice the poor behaviour of others. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

    Support block - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

    Block for quite a while This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. Jtrainor (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - TP 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Up block to a week 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from WP:FOUR (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block this time - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support Topic Ban If memory serves me right, something like this happened with Featured Sounds as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose Topic Ban It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest WP:FOUR away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. AutomaticStrikeout () 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. Cdtew (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. AutomaticStrikeout () 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Support indef topic ban - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Endorse block; honestly since this whole thing started I've been waiting for the racism accusations to appear, having observed Tony's past behavior at ANI, so this is not surprising in the least. It really should be extended to a week as this is the exact same behavior that drew a 48hr block last time and clearly nothing has been learned. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose Indefinite Block While TTT was out of line with his charges of racism, I can't believe someone tried to delete one of his user pages. That is a provocative act and as long as it didn't have libelous content on it, it's out of line to try to delete it. My question is whether this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. This is a case that is desperately in need of an unbiased third opinion. Use a mediator, this has gotten way too personal. Liz 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco, the time line also demonstrates the remarkably poor judgment that you have exercised in starting the MfD, as you made the nomination after giving a 'withdraw or face ANI' ultimatum. Liz is correct, the MfD was always going to be provocative in effect (regardless of your intent) and I am disappointed to see an administrator who failed to anticipate that the nomination was a poor decision. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And I have already given a reason why my nomination was immediate, rather than wait a week. I did not intend it as "payback" for anything here or there (though I did understand it could be taken poorly, I expected editors to look at the policy and not "just leave Tony alone"... damn I'm naive). If I found such a page the user space of anyone here I would likely have MFDed it: the policy says keep it short, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Support extended block, including indef until they withdraw their remarks and assure us they will not use the term inappropriately again. I would support a topic ban on TTT using the term racism or anything the implies the same thing like racist, racial bias, racial discrimination, racial bigotry etc against other editors or if not that a clear understanding an indef block will result if they use it inappropriately in the future. This previous discussion did not previously understand what racism even means, it sounds like they still don't understand so I don't think they should ever use the term. I would also support a topic ban on TTT from FOUR. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Endorse block, reserve judgment on other issues, because I do think Tony can use a little breather and step back while still being involved. - Penwhale | 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Support sanctions, especially topic ban and current short-term block. This has been a long-term problem. I suspect he uses the "racism" charge because he is utterly unable to understand -- or possibly incapable of understanding -- why his egotistical behavior is causing problems and thinks, therefore, it must be racism at its root. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support sanctions (block, topic ban, whatever) - I didn't want to weigh in here, but Tony's response to a request for an apology here suggests he does not understand how false claims of racism can be considered personal attacks and/or libel. Until he realises what he's doing is really not cool (for lack of a better word), I think something needs to be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support the current block (duh), perhaps a longer one (though blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and I think he gets the point). I do not support an indefinite block at this point. Tony has contributed a lot of content and that makes up for some things--though not for accusations of racism, but no doubt any future such accusations will be met with an indefinite block, per admin's discretion. I'd like to see some sort of topic ban somewhere. From Four, for starters. Plus a real short leash on canvassing and other lawyerish disruption.

      Tony, I don't understand why you felt you had to resort to that low kind of insult, but it's obviously coming back to bite you. Did you expect otherwise? I'm sure you won't leave Misplaced Pages and I for one don't want you to leave (though Lord Jimbo knows we barely ever got along), but it can't go on like this. At some point you'll have to swallow your pride, maybe. I don't know. I wish you the best, but if for you continued contributions to the project means continued disruption, then your glowing career will come to a speedy end. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

    Looks like activity has died down here over the last couple of days, partly because of the tangential thread over on WP:AN. Would an uninvolved admin please sum this up and close it? Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Request temporary interaction ban or other measure

    Withdrawing my request -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC. Ranging from:

    to this a few hours ago:

    • "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project"

    Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions". Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.

    Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR.

    I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Misplaced Pages until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    Actually, the fact that I'm posting here at all is a clear sign that I need that wikibreak. Sorry for my own role in this drama, and I'll see y'all in a month. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    Privacy of personal information

    I am not sure what to do so I am bring this here. To my dismay this morning I found that we have article(s) about youths (including under age kids) listing all there names and birth dates as seen at this version of the article Canada men's national youth soccer teams. Also discovered the same problem at United States men's national under-17 soccer team. I am currently trying to remove this info at Canada men's national youth soccer teams but this has been reverted a few times. I dont really care about the edit war or the editor involved - because I am here more concerned we may have this type of personal youth info in many articles. I can assure all here my non-famous grandson that plays soccer in Canada does not what his date of birth and name for all the world to see. We have many policies to protect children and we need to have a good look at articles of this nature. We have an obligation to protect children. -- Moxy (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    See WP:DOB. I can't see any reason why we should be including the full date of birth in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    There are hundreds of youth (both under-age and of-age) football pages on Misplaced Pages and age is documented on all of them. Moxy has already destroyed two pages rather than make targeted age edits as they desire - this after transgressing the three-revert rule.

    The grandparent story is clearly fabricated; I instructed them to remove specific info to allow for my continued update and cleanup of a messy page in need. They have not. If Moxy continues to ravage more popular football pages rather than make constructive edits and suggestions, countless users will inevitably report them. -- Nonc01 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    Could we get you to read over WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. After reading those policies do you really think its a good idea to post personal info of non famous minors and young adults on Misplaced Pages? Does it help people understand the topic better having there dates of birth's, full legal name and the places they are from listed? We try to protect children here not give out so much info that can lead to identity theft of non-famous people and harassment. -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Many youth soccer players are well known. Considering they are playing in age restricted competitions, their date of birth is easily accessible on the internet outside of Misplaced Pages. I suggest you go ravage the 3-4 football pages every country has and see how fast you are reported multiple times. If the admins take your side then more power to you. Until then people are going to be very aggravated that you are ruining pages of the most popular sport on Earth. -- Nonc01 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    I will note that of the two sources given in the article, only one includes DOBs, and only the year. So that's exactly the information that should go into the article, if at all. Ideally not even that, for privacy. §FreeRangeFrog 19:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Here's the bottom line here, Moxy: are these dates of births sourceable to reliable, secondary sources? If so, Misplaced Pages is not censored; if they're not already "out there" in such sources however, they fail WP:DOB - and possibly even WP:V - anyway, as FreeRangeFrog points out. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    The bottom line is per WP:BLP the birthdates of minors should NEVER be included in articles and removal is exempt from 3RR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see anything in WP:BLP that says that dates sourced to reliable third-party sources must be removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    just because someone else spewed the private information of a minor all across the netz, Misplaced Pages should not even secondarily be an accessory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Nobody said "all across the netz". What was said was reliable, secondary sources - for instance let's say ESPN The Magazine prints an article on "The Next X" sports star in high school, who passes the relevant notability WP:ALPHABETSOUP for an article, and their birthdate is included in a "who's X?" part of the article. Are you seriously suggesting that Misplaced Pages should censor the birthdate in the article in that circumstance? I agree completely that randomly plucked dates from Facebook X are veboten and the "when in doubt, leave it out" principle applies, but we need not to be throwing the baby (no pun intended) out with the BLP bathwater. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Yes ABSOLUTELY we should not. It is not in any fucking consideration of the process part of WP:NOTCENSORED and even if it were, BLP trumps NOTCENSORED.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Am I missing something here? Where exactly at WP:BLP does it say the birthdates of minors should always be excluded? Do you even realise how silly that sounds?--Jac16888 19:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    The only mention of minors at WP:BLP, for the record, is "minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Do you realize how silly it sounds to state that Misplaced Pages should be participating in the mass distribution of private information about minors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    No sillier than it sounds to claim that WP:BLP says things that it demonstrably doesn't.—Kww(talk 20:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)I am not commenting on the issue of this discussion, rather your ludicrous statement that "birthdates of minors should NEVER be included in articles and removal is exempt from 3RR". Would you like to apply that rule to Prince George of Cambridge, Justin Bieber or Chloë Grace Moretz?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac16888 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    You've got me there. I will make an exception. NEVER - unless the minor is third in line to the British Crown. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Do we really need to specifically name minors in our policy that is about all people young and old alike. Commons sense is telling us that if a policies that cover non famous adults then it should equally apply to children if not more so. So lets look at our policies WP:BLP says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" and we have WP:BLPNAME saying "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. ". Do people really think that playing for a youth soccer club is notable enough to list there personal info here? I understand some go on the be pros and get famous but listing ever players name and date of birth that has ever played for a youth clue is simply nuts to me. not one person listed here has there own article or even a reference to there age.... To be honest I was so upset because it looks to me like someone is releasing personal info collected during the registration of theses minors. -- Moxy (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    I concur with Moxy, these are non-notable players for the most part and this is not even their bio; as such, listing year of birth is sufficient, but we should not add month/day.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    The part of WP:BLP that actually is relevant is that sourcing is required for this information. That's actually just a plain old WP:V issue. The earlier versions of this article included a litany of birthdates that did not indicate that they had been previously published in reliable third-party sources. They can be removed on those grounds alone without reference to false statements about WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

    So to be clear you believe that theses children are notable enough to the subject at hand that they should be listed with there personal information. -- Moxy (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Their* So, you believe that people who are on the team are not notable because they are youth? If that is the case, their names wouldn't be listed on the article, much less any other information. Yeah, they are notable enough to be listed there. Being on the current squad of a national team does merit some notability, and all the information posted on Misplaced Pages matches the roster information posted by the national team websites. If you have a problem with their birthdates being out there, you might want to have a chat with the webmaster of those websites who posted names, birthdates, where they are from and what local squad they were with. Also, you are getting dangerously close to WP:3RR, so I wouldn't keep reverting. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Here's another thing, though: isn't including the birthdate on the list of players in the team article statistical overkill anyway regardless of whether they're 15 or 50? Including a publically-known, reliably-sourced date in a person's article is one thing, but as part of the list of the team? Not so much. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Not really, their age (not so much the exact date) is pretty important because these squads are divided up by their age (U-23, U-21, U-20, U-17, etc.) and hence why the roster websites post this kind of information. At any rate, Moxy, I don't know what you are you talking about when you are calling these people minors. We aren't talking about a pee-wee squad of 10 year-olds. The date of births you wiped out on the Canadian article were mostly people between the ages of 18 and 24. I don't know where you have been all your life in Canada, but you clearly have a misconception of who a child is. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Its concerning that people dont see a problem with publishing youth info of this nature here on Wiki or other places. Its also concerning to see reverts being made without any sources leading to the same original problem. Think we are going to need a policy on this matter. We seem to need some guidelines for the basic of child protection here. Like jaywalking or hot warnings on cups in the real world some laws are in the books simply because some dont see a problem. -- Moxy (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    There's correct applications of BLP, overreactions to BLP and then there's stupidly blanking articles based on BLP, which is what I saw there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Moxy, looking at the original diff you provided with a more critical eye now, it's true - not one person on that list is a minor. 2013-18 = 1995, and the youngest year given there was 1992. Now, since that is supposed to be the "U-18" team that means the article is seriously out of date(!), but it also means you need to be more careful about what you are referring to when you refer to "child protection". - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer 22:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    You are correct I stand here with egg on my face. I should be saying youth in that case. Sorry for me under 21 was a minor...after looking at this I see legally its 18 in Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Chill pill @The Red Pen of Doom: If you cannot calm down, then you should find something else to do for a time. This here is why Misplaced Pages should be concerned with the ages of youths who participate in sports at a national or international level. It is relevant and WP:BLP is not a trump card that you can just throw around and say "It doesn't say so specifically, but ITS A BLP!!!" You must clearly explain your rationale why it should not be included. Screaming BLP is not a rationale. I agree with TheBush - if it's sourcable to secondary sources, like ESPN, and it is relevant to a particular sport where age is restricted, and it exists at a highly competitive level, then ages should be included.--v/r - TP 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    There is nothing to "chill" about when Misplaced Pages is actively participating in the mass distribution of personal information about minors. Anyone who is NOT upset about such crass and careless actions should be taken OFF their pills. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, take off your "I have a righteous cause behind me" sticker and then ask yourself how far your "passion" (read battleground behavior) will get you when you act like you did above. I've seen you make far more rational arguments in the past, step it up.--v/r - TP 11:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Don't patronise people TP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a danger here of being a little too mindless in application of the guideline/policy here. When we come across things like this, then yes, birthdates should be removed, as an article subjects' children are definitely non-public. In the case of these national junior team lists, however, the dates of birth are generally quite public because their ages are very highly relevant as that is the second most important factor in their being named to these squads after their talent level. If official sources are giving birthdates, then there is no reason why it should be forbidden here. That, however, is not to preclude the possibility of going down to just a month-year format or even just the year in some instances. Resolute 21:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Simple part of the answer: WP:DOB (part of WP:BLP) says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" (emphasis mine). This is true even if the DOB is reliably sourced, or even if the player is over 18 (or whatever age cutoff you want to use for "minor"). As a rule, individual players on U-17 thru U-21 teams are either non-notable, or borderline notable. Especially if their names are redlinks, but even for the odd case where they're blue. Don't include their DOB in the team article, just list the year. I don't see a critical problem with listing year of birth or hometowns, perhaps that is worth discussing further somewhere besides ANI.
    The more complicated issue of where to draw the line for DOB inclusion for articles about specific minors in general (how famous do they have to be? What age? etc.) is not clearcut, and isn't going to be decided by a discussion at ANI.
    So, if you see such a table, removing the month and day from the DOB's falls clearly within BLP policy, and is immune from 3RR. Removing the year of birth, hometowns, or (worse) the whole table, is not clearly within BLP policy, and probably is not immune from 3RR (of course, neither is restoring it). Discuss it first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Note the link provided above to the official team website which lists the full date of births. Shouldn't that count as a source linked to the subject publishing the information under WP:DOB. Monty845 23:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    No, because the website belongs to the team, not the individual... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    Also, removing the day and month clearly does not fall within the WP:3rr BLP Exemption. The exemption does not apply to everything in the BLP policy, it applies only to Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). The information in question is well sourced, and undisputed as to its accuracy. How then does the 3rr exemption apply? Monty845 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    The source(s) you see above are not in the articles in question. -- Moxy (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    WP:SOFIXIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    You are correct as per WP:Burden...but the info was being removed on the grounds of WP:DOB and WP:BLPNAME. Thus those doing the reverts were not aware that sourcing was also a problem. They should be added now that we have them...but like me I am assume most are waiting to see the outcome here first - as in are the names and dates of birth even going to stay there. -- Moxy (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    I guess that's true; one person would be following BLP, one would be violating it, but an admin who wanted to could technically block both for 3rr, not just one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong, an admin better be very sure they know what they are doing before blocking someone attempting to carry out BLP policy. But we need to be careful not to let BLP become a license to edit war, lest we end up in a situation where both sides of an edit war believe they their warring is exempt. The actual exemption works well that way, because adding back content can't qualify for the exemption, but could still be required or encouraged by BLP Policy. Monty845 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    WP:DOB also says "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." So there's a valid argument for inclusion, which should be resolved by discussion, not an individual editor's interpretation of the BLP policy. NE Ent 02:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Give me a break. The suggestion that only the year be used obviously modifies the part you're quoting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    "Err on side of" does not BLP violation make. Out of curiosity, I googled the first player on the US men under 17 article -- Misplaced Pages was only the sixth link -- omitting a youtube vid, two of the higher ranked websites lists DOB, and now I even know the kid's GPA and what church they go to. So this concept that if it's not on Misplaced Pages it's not public is overwrought. Is it necessary? Is it encyclopedic? Arguably not -- but claiming BLP violation is an overreach. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    The whole "its out there on the interwebs so we shouldnt care if we spread it too" attitude and rationale is bullshit. just because other sites are negligent in their care of personal data of minors in no way becomes an excuse for Misplaced Pages to actively engage in such careless practices ourselves. The "we are not responsible for the stuff that happens on our watch" is the same attitude that lead to the scandals in the boy scouts and catholic church. Misplaced Pages's reputation demands better accountability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    IOW the only reason to do it is so that we can feel that we're Doing Something Good and we can Feel Good About It, then. If somebody's DOB is "out there" in reputable third-party sources, that in all likelyhood were given the date by the subject or the subject's parents, removing it on Misplaced Pages "for the children!" does nothing except make Misplaced Pages look stupid. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Would be best if all worked towards implementing our BLP policies with even greater care when possible in regards to youth over worrying what others think of the website - WP:MINORS (essay) -- Moxy (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Misplaced Pages is regarded in some quarters as a laughingstock, and doing pointless things that will have no effect other than making it more of a laughingstock is not something we need to be doing, at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I will gladly be considered a laughingstock by anyone who considers us a laughingstock because we take precautions to not be actively disseminating personal information about minors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    And the inclusion of information that you personally do not like does not make us "negligent", TRPOD. I'm not saying that we need to retain full birth dates in this specific instance, but your black and white all-or-nothing stance is unhelpful in the extreme. Resolute 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think it is an almost entirely black and white situation. There are a few cases where the date of birth of a minor may be posted on Misplaced Pages with little fear that we are causing harm to the minor, but there are very few minors who are third in line for the throne of England. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think the opposite, actually. There are very few cases where posting the date of birth would lead to fear of causing harm to a minor, because very few minors are notable. Lists like these can certainly be fair game for discussion since the players are mostly non-notable. But the majority of examples will be articles like Dakota Fanning, whose birthdate was on her article since she was about 10 years old, or an unquestionably notable athlete like Connor McDavid, who has been playing in the national spotlight for years already. So as I said, it is not a black and white situation, and mindless actions are not beneficial. Resolute 23:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Most of these players are not even borderline notable, independent of their team - or at least, they are currently red-linked. I also looked at a few of the articles for the players who have them, and at most they are borderline notable. So personally I don't think we should have exact dates of birth for any of these people, either in a list or in an article. But especially for the players who are red-linked, it doesn't seem right. (Regardless of whether they are actually minors.) Neutron (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    • Remove — I think it is more appropriate to err on the side of caution and not include such info per WP:IINFO: simply being true doesn't itself merit inclusion, and in this instance the privacy issue is paramount to verifiability. More saliently: is this info necessary for understanding the subject and would its removal be detrimental to the article as whole? In this case, it's a solid "no" and I think the info should be removed. (NOTE: page specifically states: "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter...do not post it here.") DKqwerty (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    DOB is standard information in collegiate sports and all non-senior sports teams especially football. 1) It is self explanatory why it is relevant; playing in age groups/age-restricted tournaments makes DOB important, this is why it has been a standard forever. Stating factual opposition to this is like saying the weight of a fighter is not important in relation to the weight class they are participating in. 2) Info is not replicated from facebook or a host of random or fledgling websites. DOB is accessible from the official websites of the various football associations, no doubt directly copied off forums signed and released by the parental figures or adult youth players in question. This is also replicated on large well known websites such as transfermarkt. (Unnecessary) partial DOB removal should only be accepted if there is a plan for a swift continuity of editing and research (who is notable vs. who is not - which is a laughable warring standard to maintain btw) of these hundreds of youth football pages, not to mention thousands from other sports and non-sporting individuals. Even that will be met with counteractions and grief. A small percentage of random edits over weeks and months would be outrageous and ineffective. With current literature and guidelines benefiting both viewpoints, just try and edit the youth pages of prominent Spain, England, Brazil, Argentina, USA, Australia, Germany, etc and see the kind of warring shitstorm and confusion it creates. Nonc01 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • remove The wikipedia policy on this is pretty clear - if they are borderline notable, delete the birthdate. This should be an open/shut case. There is a huge difference between wikipedia publishing something and a random website doing so - those random websites are not mirrored/archived, and they rank much lower. If those random websites came to their senses and decided to unpublish the information (1) We probably wouldn't even notice and (2) It would be too late for us to unpublish it, it would be in the record and in dozens of wikipedia clones. There is such a thing as security through obscurity, so unless you can demonstrate some sort of encyclopedic reason for needing date/date of birth (vs year), and can demonstrate that these kids are worthy of note besides being members of a team, why not just drop the stick and do the decent thing and not publish the birthdates? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • This is one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. Are you saying we really have to wait until a person's 18th birthday to reveal a sodding date of birth, information which is freely available about notable (albeit young) people? Theo Walcott represented the England national team aged 17 years and 75 days, becoming one of the most prominent sportsmen in the country, regardless of age. Should we have waited a further 290 days to publish his DOB? No, we would have rightly been a laughing stock. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and this information is freely available in reliable, secondary service - it stays. Get a fucking grip. GiantSnowman 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Remove the non-reliably sourced birthdates, and the birthdates of non-notable players. However, I fail to understand what the fuss is about a birth date for a minor. All it does is tell you how old they are, nothing else. I've publicly displayed my birthdate for years, and most minors do. If we started including things like address, or whatever, then of course it should go. But the claim that a minor's DOB should never be present is indeed ludicrous, as per the highly notable people being referenced (one more being Rebecca Black) - partially because, in some places, a person is still a minor at 21; and yet, in others it may be 16. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:Outing has absolutely no relevance here (I have used my DOB publicly in far more places than Misplaced Pages). It is about issues with Misplaced Pages editors, not with subjects; and revealing a date of birth can never be outing, because it's not a major piece of information. I don't understand what the fuss is about at all - a date of birth is not a super-private thing, and, if the subject is notable, hasn't directly requested the removal of the DoB, and the DoB is reliably sourced, it should be included. Blanket statements like "minors DoBs should never be published" have no basis in fact, reality, or logic. Again, it would look stupid if some of the most notable youngsters (Rebecca Black, Justin Bieber, royalty), whose date of birth has been WIDELY published, was not to be included; it's an encyclopedic fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have my own view on whether precise dates of birth should be given or not, but frankly the question is of marginal importance. What is more important to me is the florid and overheated language and argumentation style from both sides here. Please calm this discussion down. It's not urgent, or life threatening, or even very important which result we get here. Heightening the rhetoric on both sides is making a sensible discussion and an agreed consensus less likely, not more so. Kim Dent-Brown 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I've removed the list again and I'm locking the article until there is a clear consensus that this isn't a huge BLP violation here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    What BLP violation is the names of the players, how many goals they scored and what teams they played for locally? You're not removing a BLP violation, you just locked the article to your preferred revision after a series of reverts including yourself. If you want to remove the column with the dates while the discussion was ongoing, why did you not do that? Or even remove the dates an replace it with an age or year only? You've clearly done something wrong here blanking the whole list and protecting it. Stop trying to be a champion of child protection and use your common sense about what you are actually removing from the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    This wouldn't be necessary if editors weren't edit warring to keep the information in the article while this discussion is ongoing. If you have a suggested edit that would improve the article while it is locked, please use the talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I just suggested it to you, restore what isn't a BLP violation. Do you have cotton in your ears, or are you blatantly trying to be annoying? Blanking and protecting two articles now, is getting pretty damn close to abuse. Do you know how many articles there are on youth football (soccer) teams? There's a under-17, under-18, under-20, etc. for hundreds of countries. You want to go to all the other articles and do the same, and cause a massive shitstorm, or do you want to put the article the way it was, and temporarily remove the date column? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Dial it back, please, and take a short wikibreak from this issue. It sounds like you need it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Based on your patronizing response to the desire for constructive editing rather than blanking, and the less radical--even contradictory attitudes from your fellow admins in here, I would say something but I'm not going to. Nonc01 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Well, Gamaliel, I could be easily convinced that the rosters are mostly unnecesary, but I really don't think that casting a blatant supervote and coupling it with protecting the page despite being involved is a bright idea. And no, you are not just acting as an admin there. As soon as you made such a significant content change, you lost that shield, imnsho. Resolute 23:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    BLP demands immediate action. If consensus determines that this is somehow not a gigantic BLP violation, then the rosters can be restored with a single click. All my actions are well within the purview of BLP and administrative responsibilities. The idea that I'm some kind of "involved" party because I didn't lock the page immediately is ludicrous. Locking the page was only necessary because edit warriors were determined to restore the material. BLP policy and practice has always been clear and always in favor of privacy and protecting living individuals: remove contentious material immediately, restore only with consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    If you want to argue the content, go right ahead. But you are now an involved party and should not have locked the page. Particularly since the edit war had ended over a day ago. You're not protecting the article from anything, you are merely locking the page at your preferred version. Resolute 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    What's ludicrous is your idea of what BLP content is, if you think the whole table violated BLP. BLP certainly does demand you remove anything that is being contested, but the whole roster tables were not being discussed. Their names, their local teams, and how many goals they scored? Again, I'll ask you, if they violate BLP, explain your blanking of that information right now. Otherwise, if they don't, restore it because now that you locked the article, normal editors can't. And if they don't fall within BLP, then you were simply part of a revert war which you protected on your revision. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Well, looks like next time I will just go ahead an lock the article immediately. I thought editors would be reasonable about a BLP issue, I was obviously wrong. Insuring BLP compliance is well within my powers and responsibilities, and I'm not going to unlock the article because you bizarrely claim I'm some kind of "involved" party when my only edits ever were part of an effort to insure BLP compliance. Your efforts are better spent gaining a consensus that this personal infodump is indeed BLP compliant instead of clumsily trying to shoot the messenger. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    What is your lock intended to protect, hmm? There were only two editors involved, neither has made a revert to the table in over 24 hours, and only one editor was editing to keep the table in the article. We both know that if they reverted again, they would get blocked. So tell me, what purpose does your protection serve other than enforcing your preferred version? I'm not concerned with your view of BLP compliance - I actually disagree with Moe's argument, the entire table is the source of contention - I am concerned with your unnecessary use of the tools. Resolute 00:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'm better off talking to a rock at this point. I asked you one question, and I can't get a response. I didn't ask the page be unlocked, I asked you to restore what isn't a BLP violation on the table and if anything other than the DOBs was a BLP violation to explain why you think it is. Why are the names, goals, other information other than DOB a BLP violation you felt needed to be blanked? Can you answer? That's fine, Resolute, you're within your right to disagree, but I'd rather there not be a blank section on a protected article without some justification or explanation of why a column can't be removed rather than the whole thing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's kind of amusing that we are both annoyed with that action, yet for different reasons! ;) But in fairness to Gamaliel, the entire table is the source of contention. The discussion boiled down to DOB, but yesterday's edit war was over the entire tables, and Moxy's original complaint here expressed concern about both names and dates of birth. Resolute 00:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    How can a name alone be anywhere near BLP violation? This original request of what to review is totally flawed and unreasonable. A request to have youth names blocked means all national youth teams, tables, (not to mention millions of other edits) will be removed from Misplaced Pages. Which of course won't happen because that is censorship (and not BLP violation). Yet we have a rogue admin who has blindly accepted this proposal and begun the blackout process. An astonishing gong-show. Nonc01 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Because you can justify anything by crying "think of the children". - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Gamaliel needs to re-read WP:INVOLVED, I think, revert their badly-judged action(s), and, in fact, read WP:BLP. This is NOT a BLP issue; it's someone looking to create a shitstorm out of nothing, which they've succeeded with. Policy on dates of birth is very clear, has been highlighted here by several editors, and has been roundly ignored by people on both sides of the debate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    FYI, you only locked the US article, not the two Canadian articles.--Auric talk 18:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've also edited and protected Canada men's national youth soccer teams. What is the other Canadian article? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    What a ridiculous edit, from an admin no less. I was no longer warring with Moxy I was making improvements to the page, if you want me to remove DOB for the time being I will leave it off but to blank the page and lock it is a joke. "Other" Canadian article? Do you understand there are hundreds of Wiki youth national soccer pages with this info? In that sense what is the point of you blanking and locking this obscure one? Especially considering guidelines contradict such a move just as much as any literature warrants it. Nonc01 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I dont think those reverting understand the process when there may be a BLP violation. It should not be restore while we are here talking about the deleted content to ensure it complies with the BLP policies. Also both page did not contain sources at the time for the content being re-added. Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content. On a side note a list of all the affected pages would be a good idea to list here. I see at Category:Youth association football by country there are many as you say. Think that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football should have some advice on all this on there page but I dont see it ...They have been invited here so lets see. -- Moxy (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I suspect there are also around 60-70 women's youth team pages. I have no desire to edit or contribute further though since I do not agree with the direction this is going. Once the lock is lifted I will restore the Canadian page and remove DOB. Then I am done and I will watch this underestimated and huge thing unfold with a grin and bowl of popcorn. Nonc01 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    There is no consensus to remove the DOBs en masse, and any removal of information supported by reliable sources would be considered disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    There are plenty of other cases where the birthdate of minor sports people are mentioned on wikipedia. In the case of world youth bests in athletics, their birthdate is of great significance. With the historical nature of the records, it is important for us to retain this information. We must assume these people grow up. The majority of birtdates on that list are for people who made their notable achievement as a minor, but have now advanced to adulthood. How would you propose retaining and putting the information back at an appropriate time? How would you propose removing the important (age) math calculation from such an article? Philosophically I am against removal at all. By the time someone has achieved notability, their secrecy about their birthdate had gone by the wayside long ago. That would turn wikipedia not into distributing information but for censoring information, which is also against policy. Trackinfo (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Yesterday, a bunch of young men who had earned the right to represent their country in an athletic event were on Misplaced Pages -- and today, they're not. Yet, since we don't actually control the Internet or google search results, they're birth dates are just as visible but their achievements are not visible here. BLP is about "contentious material" -- obviously they were born. So by applying a draconian myoptic view of BLP we're being respectful to them how, exactly? ("I'm sorry, since your birthdate was published on the Internet you can't be mentioned on Misplaced Pages?") NE Ent 01:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Not only that, atheletes who are on similar athletic teams like the U-20 teams, can't even be mentioned on the articles with minors, according to Gamaliel. He went ahead and removed the names of non-minors because their names were red links too. Pretty unbelievable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    As I said above, the only thing this action does is feed the nabobs. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Does context affect personal information?

    After reading the discussion above, I can see there is general agreement that protecting the release of a child's personal information is preferred yet it seems if the information is presented in context as the parent's personal information the collateral release of the child's personal information is treated as inconsequential. Based on 84,000 hits, a conservative estimate based on my observations of emerging trends suggest we have at lease a couple thousand articles like this GA which contains the following content: "Spears gave birth to her first son, Sean Preston, on September 15, 2005." and "On September 12, 2006, Spears gave birth to her second child, Jayden James.", both being reliably sourced. Is this acceptable?—John Cline (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I think in the case you just gave, the detailed dates of birth add nothing to the article. They could be cut down to just years. I think context does matter based on if it matters in the wider subject area. In certain areas of sports, the dates of birth matter. We shouldn't care for local sports where this matters, but on a national or international level, we should give just as much weight to dates of birth as the sources do.--v/r - TP 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Face reality. Birthdates that are released to reliable sources are not secret. I understand there is an overwrought argument that someone will use this stuff for identity theft. But when doing serious work we need to recognize that for what it is - a sleazy dodge by banks to somehow make the holder of an account feel responsible that the bank had zero security and was robbed. I mean seriously, what's the difference between relying on the secrecy of a birthdate and a maiden name, and strolling out for lunch leaving the bank vault unlocked, then blaming the account holder because the bank's address appears in a phone book? Misplaced Pages can extend some modest courtesy about birthdates when the subjects actually care and when there is no encyclopedic point, but don't go crazy trying to push back the whole ocean with your hands to keep it from swamping your sand-castle. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I suspect the intent to protect children goes beyond identity fraud; including evils far worse. I simply thought it ironic that intelligent, well meaning editors would argue with ferocious passion about a minor child's date of birth being published in a Misplaced Pages article, while turning a blind eye when the same information is presented as the mother's date of labor and delivery. These become part of the "reality" I face as well.—John Cline (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Didn't we go through this with the Obama girls? I thought there was long-standing consensus that we don't include DOB's for non-notable minors. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Which is completely and wholly logical. The argument being made as a whole here is that even notable minors shouldn't have publically-known and reliably-sourced DOBs (and apparently some people are arguing that they shouldn't even be named?), and the point in this subsection is that there's an appearance that while there is much sound and fury about that, this other issue gets quietly ignored. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Request for comment from Jimbo Wales (or any other Misplaced Pages Foundation members)

    In the interest of full disclosure: I've requested that Jimbo Wales weigh in on this issue because 1.) there is no specific policy to which we can refer, 2.) there is extensive disagreement over how this should be handled and 3.) privacy of minors has actual legal ramifications in the real world. As such, I've request he (or any other Misplaced Pages Foundation members) weigh in on this and exert whatever authority is deemed appropriate. DKqwerty (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Potentially involved protection

    User:Gamaliel reverted, multiple times, re-additions of a table containing names and birthdates of players, claiming a BLP violation. When asked on his talkpage, he could not provide a satisfactory explanation how this falls under the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" clause, as multiple other administrators have disagreed with his protection, nor did he provide an explanation for how it fails the "subject not objecting" clause that is in WP:DOB. This serves as a formal request to Gamaliel to remove his protections, or provide satisfactory explanation, and also a formal request from others on the validity of the clearly involved actions. As well as being involved, Gamaliel removed clearly sourced information, which does not meet, in my opinion, the not "such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" clause of WP:DOB. ~Charmlet 03:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    I've spend a great deal of this evening explaining above and on my talk page why this "involved" nonsense is ludicrous and I'm not going to repeat myself here. I'm going to sleep and I'll be back online in about 12 hours or so. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    You've not explained how content reverts which are only claimed to be BLP related are administrative actions. As I said, I'm only looking for other community members to express their views on whether you should've been the one to protect the pages. Your and my opinions really don't matter in this issue, the opinions of the rest of the community do. ~Charmlet 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've repeatedly explained, you just aren't listening. Gamaliel (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    From what I can see here, you're not listening to the fact that most other editors believe it is not a BLP issue. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)You have explained nothing other than made it clear that it is your opinion you were in line with all policies. I, in turn, have quoted the section of WP:INVOLVED that makes your actions not in line with that policy. Multiple other administrators have disagreed with your protection (at least from what I read). Thus it cannot be expected that any reasonable administrator would perform the same action, thus it is a violation. On top of that, the perceived BLP violations are very ambiguous, and it is nowhere near clear that there is any consensus for removal or keeping. Thus, it is not an action that any reasonable user would perform. Thus, it violates WP:INVOLVED. ~Charmlet 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Just because Gamaliel is wrong and not heeding community consensus doesn't make them admin WP:INVOLVED; that's not the issue. NE Ent 10:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    WP:INVOLVED states that when an editor (who is also an administrator) has taken part in a debate in a non-administrative capacity, they should not perform any administrative actions on the page unless they are confident that "any reasonable" admin would do the same thing. Here, we have an administrator who reverted content based on his opinion of BLP, and there was no discussion that he could have interpreted as the community saying it was BLP. Thus, he was reverting solely on a personal level. In this case, I see no way, if Gamaliel read this discussion, they could believe any reasonable admin would perform the protection, heck, multiple admins (and others) disagreed with his m:Wrong version. ~Charmlet 12:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    I don't think that this was an involved protection (Gamaliel clearly believed to be removing serious BLP violations, and protected the pages to prevent the readdition of these and as the lesser harm compared to blocks; admins are supposed to take the necessary measures to prevent BLP violations), but it's obvious from the above discussion that these are not generally considered to be such clear or serious BLP violations and so don't warrant such blanking and protection. A full discussion (RfC or the like) should determine more thoroughly what to do with these kind of entries. I'll unprotect the two articles and revert them to the pre-discussion state; I have no objections to someone then e.g. removing the DOB from all minors and/or redlinks in these articles as a pro temporis measure, but I hope that no further edit warring or overreactions will happen. Fram (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    I guess the better question is why did Gamaliel protect (and revert) when there was a discussion going on that was nowhere near consensus? That seems like a super!vote to me. ~Charmlet 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Its pretty simple why - Its a good faith BLP violation removal and consensus is needed for it t be put back as per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content. Was all done to stop an edit wars that kept putting back the info despite this talk. -- Moxy (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    But it wasn't / isn't a BLP violation! GiantSnowman 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    As all can see above the talk is on going....I was not aware the conversation was over. Yes seems to be leaning towards not protecting non notable minors but I see no close. It simply good faith and good etiquette not to edit during talks. If an admin thinks this is clear cut then it should be closed "then" action taken. Personally It looks to me that a wider conversation is what many are asking for. -- Moxy (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    And that's the inherent problem in this discussion: we're in the middle of an argument sketch ("Yes it is! / No it isn't!"). Until that is resolved, siding with BLP caution isn't a bad thing. Taking User:Gamaliel to task for erring on the side of protecting potential BLP information strikes me as over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    The way I see it, one of two things happened:
    • Gamaliel saw the discussion, didn't like the lack of consensus, and so claimed BLP anyway and protected the page as a sort of supervote.
    • Gamaliel did not know of the discussion, and truly believed that he was acting as any administrator would.
    I firmly believe the second one is true. The protection has been undone, and Gamaliel seems to be stepping away from this issue, so I think we're done in this section. ~Charmlet 20:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Fabricating information and POV-pushing by User:The Discoverer

    I need administrator help to deal with User:The Discoverer, who made a number of edits contradicted by neutral sources, in a way that advances the Indian agenda in several articles about places that are claimed by both India and China.

    For example, in this edit on Khurnak Fort, he added "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory", purportedly supported by two Indian sources. However, the Indian source he cites says "The Chinese claim line ... included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. ... the Chinese were in occupation of all this territory by the early 1950s.", clearly contradicting his edit.

    In the same edit, he added "this traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line" (the Johnson Line is what India claims to be the traditional border), citing this US Navy source. However, the source has this to say about the Johnson Line: "Johnson's work has been severely criticized for gross inaccuracies, with description of his boundary as patently absurd. ... Johnson was reprimanded by the British Government for crossing into Khotan without permission, and resigned from the Survey."

    He also created or modified several articles including Lanak Pass, Sirijap, Galwan River, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Chip Chap River, etc., quoting almost exclusively non-neutral Indian sources while repeating the same fabricated information. He also created the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War using the biased word "occupied", and added all the articles into that category, including Khurnak Fort and Lanak Pass that even Indian sources admit were controlled by China before the war.

    After noticing his POV edits, I nominated the category for deletion and reminded him on his talk page to follow the NPOV policy, and he agreed. However, pretty soon he added even more one-sided pro-Indian POV to several articles, citing exclusively non-neutral Indian sources.

    I then tried again and again to persuade him to follow the NPOV policy, yet he refused to listen. On 2 September he again added Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (diffs: ), even though all sources, including Indian ones that he added himself, say they were controlled by China in the 1950s, clearly before the 1962 war.

    User:The Discoverer is no stranger to ANI. Last year he was reported here for copyright violation. I request that this user be topic-banned for repeatedly and persistently violating WP policies. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Following are some comments regarding the points raised:
    • Regarding Khurnak Fort: "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory" is supported by the text at and . I know these are not reliable sources, but my statement is not a fabrication. Later, I provided four sources (available in the current revision) that state that the fort was controlled by China since June or July 1958.
    • My full sentence was "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British." This is an objective and true statement and I stand by it. I have never, ever made any attempt to justify the Johnson line, as implied by Zanhe.
    • I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and in the discussion we had at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28. I have been willing to consider all Zanhe's objections, and have repeatedly offered to rename the category to a more suitable name.
    • Zanhe objected to including Indian sources, while my argument was that since the same Indian sources had criticised India, and since their statements have not been disputed by any other source, they have some reliability and neutrality. At the end of our discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_28, I suggested that we discuss our disagreement further at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in order to get other editors' views.
    • On the occasion when my edits were reported for copyvio, what had happened was that I had split Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio had originated from the original Misplaced Pages article.
    The Discoverer (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding Khurnak Fort: you admit that all four Indian sources you added say the fort has been controlled by China since 1958 (another source says early 1950s), yet you still insist on re-adding the article to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. Your personal bias has obviously impeded your judgment to the extent that you're unable to accept the simple fact that 1958 was before the 1962 war. Your behaviour is a perfect example for WP:COMPETENCE#Bias-based, which says that "a topic ban is generally appropriate" in such cases.
    • Regarding the Johnson Line: how can you deny that your sentence "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line" is a justification of the Johnson Line? In territorial disputes, each country usually describes its preferred boundary as the "traditional" one. Your claim that the Johnson Line followed the traditional boundary is clearly an endorsement.
    • The main problem with Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (besides non-neutral language) is that not a single neutral source says any of the places was occupied by China after the war. On the contrary, all neutral sources I've read say China withdrew to the prewar border after the war, which is also what the main article Sino-Indian War says. You're completely replying on non-neutral Indian sources and your own fabrication.
    • I did not object to the inclusion of all Indian sources. I only insisted that non-neutral sources need proper attribution per WP policy, and that you cannot draw conclusions solely from non-neutral sources. (diffs: )
    • As for your previous incident on ANI, the discussions involved allegations of copying content from other articles without attribution, as well as copyright violation. As a result, your original creations were deleted by admins.
    -Zanhe (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Reinstatement of sockpuppet's work - 0RR request

    User:DeFacto received an indefinite block many months ago and has since opened many sockpuppet accounts. He used one such account User:Ex-Stanley to take part in a long-running dispue regarding on the Talk pages of the Falkland Islands. Once this account was identified as a sock-puppet account, I struck out his "contributions" to the debate thus. This striking-out was reverted three times by User:Kahastok - here, here and here. I reinstated the strike-outs, explaining to Kahastok that my striking out did not count towards a 3RR ban. I also gave him a 3RR warning here. This was followed by User:Apcbg reinstating the striken out text with the comment "I agree with Kahastok's reasoning so I've had that text un-striken. For technical purposes, please regard the un-striken contributions as having been made by me; for all I know I am not banned and therefore am in a position to contribute such comments.". I request that

    • That I (or some other third party) be permitted to strike these comments out again and that reinstatement of these comments be subject to a WP:0RR block.
    • That User:Apcbg be warned about his provocative behaviour.

    Martinvl (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    User Martinvl has a very strong POV on units of measure, in favour of metrication in the UK. He has been trying to force this POV into Falklands articles for the best part of half a decade. By now, we have reached the point where his argument rarely rise above the level of WP:GAME. From insisting that geography is a science and that therefore miles are effectively entirely banned from Misplaced Pages under WP:UNITS (a highly novel interpretation that has never been applied anywhere else), to announcing that WP:UNITS requires metric units in all contexts in UK-related articles (when anyone who can read it can see that it does not) to deciding that because we was withdrawing his consent to a consensus that consensus no longer existed. He cannot be trusted to edit Falklands articles without pushing this point. For example, by the time he posted this, out of the blue, he'd been pushing the point for four years and it is totally inconceivable that he didn't know it to be controversial. More diffs later if people want them - no time now.
    He has been the only one pushing this point in recent months. The continual repetition of the same arguments, over and over, and the continual campaigning, reached the level of being disruptive to the topic and to the encyclopædia some time in around 2010 and has not dropped down from that level since.
    Nobody else would start these discussions if Martin were not present and if a newcomer did the point would likely easily be resolved. Nobody else wants to discuss units of measure continually instead of actually improving the encyclopædia.
    In this case, he's trying to remove the edits of an editor that he does not agree with, edits that were endorsed by others, in such a way as to make it very difficult to follow the discussion. There is nothing in policy that requires the reversion of banned editors' comments, and I believe nothing that even allows the alteration of banned editors' comments as Martin demands. He claims that striking out others' comments - even where that means reverting a non-banned editor - is protected by 3RR: this is yet another novel interpretation of policy that would not be accepted anywhere else. There is no good reason to strike these comments - it just looks like he's trying to get rid of comments that disagree with him.
    I am calling for a topic ban that will prevent Martin from adding, altering or discussing units of measure on Falklands articles, including the rules that govern them. I have become convinced that this is the only way in which the encyclopædia can be protected from this disruptive POV push. Kahastok talk 07:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Luke, at one point I was so bothered by DeFacto's multiple socks that I examined the contribution histories of a batch of editors including Kahastok that were then involved in another issue. The comparison showed me that DeFacto was using socks in tag-teams and they were ultimately blocked as socks, but it also showed me that Kahastok was a different person. NebY (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I have been wondering how long it would be before I was told as was DeFacto. I was expecting it to be Martin hauling me into SPI.
    Thing is, anyone who deals with Martin about units of measure for a long period of time is going to end up expressing the same concerns. And if you disagree with him, and aren't willing to accept his POV in full, it will be for a long period of time.
    I have never yet seen Martin prepared to compromise on any substantive aspect of his POV. You either accept his POV in the article in full - that means articles that actively push metrication in the UK and UK-related articles with not an imperial unit in sight (despite WP:UNITS, which says that imperial units should be primary in many contexts) - or he will go on and on and on and never stop. On the Falklands it's been going on since 2009. I and others compromised massively, from the previous imperial-first consensus to a version that has metric units in all but a few contexts, the same that are described at WP:UNITS. Until he endorsed the current consensus (which he recently tried to row back on - insisting that because he withdrew his consent more than two years later it was never consensus in the first place), the most Martin was willing to compromise was that imperial units could be used in theory, so long as none were ever used in practice. Kahastok talk 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I never said you were DeFacto, I said that you were acting like them; if you were DeFacto, a CU would almost certainly have found out after, what, five years of editing? You look like a meatpuppet, just by the way you're acting; again, that's not saying you are, but you're taking exactly the same line DeFacto and their multitude of socks did, using similar language. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Putting the possibility of Kashastok aside, unless Apcbg is suspected of being a sock as well (which I'm not saying they are) then they are certainly able to take on the comments as if it were their own. There is precedent in the past that when banned/indef'd editors come back with a sock and contribute something that is meaningful, which is subsequently reverted, another editor in good standing may, at their own risk, take ownership of that contribution and add it back in. So unless the material is blatant trolling, which it doesn't seem so to me but it is rather tangential and not really germane, I don't really see the justification for a final revert with a 0RR and a warning. Blackmane (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    <- Regardless of policy, guidelines and the intent of people who re-implement edits by blocked/banned editors, the effect is that it becomes impossible to enforce blocks and bans. It enables and encourages block evasion, a problem for which Misplaced Pages does not have a technical solution, or any effective solution in my view. I think using the term "in good standing" to describe editors who, in effect, facilitate block/ban evasion is counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I don't think that's the right way of looking at it. There are instances (I'm not talking hypothetically, a wikiproject I'm on had to deal with this a few weeks ago) where the (laudable) desire to discourage block evasion has, through deletion of a sock's work that other users would have been happy to "adopt," put a massive dent in the project's work and in the integrity of Misplaced Pages as a whole. All someone is doing by "adopting" an edit is saying that they would make it themselves; if the content of the edit is problematic, that can be sanctioned itself, but making a perfectly legitimate edit taboo forever because a sock also made it in the past is counterproductive. Now, in this case, Apcbg was wrong. "Adopting" an article edit and "adopting" a talk page comment signed by another user aren't the same thing. If he wanted to say the same things, he should have done so in a new comment (even copying and pasting the text if he felt like it, as long as he signed it himself). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I used to think like you. I don't anymore. Years of dealing with sockpuppets and observing the effects of their presence in the WP:ARBPIA topic area changed my mind. But, like everything, I guess it depends on the circumstances. I think if an edit is worth making, it or something resembling it, will eventually be re-discovered and made completely independently by someone else at some point in the future, hopefully someone who isn't a blocked sociopathic liar, racist, ultranationalist extremist etc...the list is long. The effects of block evasion on article content can be substantial overtime. There are numerous examples, but to pick one, the BBC recently asked over at the Israel talk page about edit warring after this study was published, a study that pre-dates the imposition of 1RR across the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Unlike sockpuppetry, edit warring is a problem with a solution that works quite well. The person with the 2nd highest number of edits to that article over the past year is a blocked editor who used 14 socks to make those edits. They also happen to be a racist ultranationalist who refers to Arabs and Iranians as apes. That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the effects block evasion on the ARBPIA topic area. Something needs to change and if there is some short term collateral damage by people taking a stricter approach to dealing with the effects of block evasion it might be worth it in the long run. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I'd disagree Roscelese. The minor improvement a sockpuppet could make does not outweigh to massive disruption that would be caused if we created an atmosphere where sock edits could be "adopted." That encourages more socks to continue to edit. The point is we want them to leave. WP:RBI.--v/r - TP 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) about the original complaint, the way Ex-Stanley's comment had been struck out could give the impression to a casual reader that it was struck because Ex-Stanley changed his mind. I think it's customary for a notation such as "sock-puppet" to be added, with the name of the editor doing the striking out. Kahastok could have posted a similar comment or just "I agree". —rybec 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I would not have argued with such a solution - a note in small saying that he'd been blocked. Though I maintain that the fact that Ex-Stanley was blocked for sockpuppetry was made perfectly clear already in the discussion and there is no real need at present for any change. Kahastok talk 22:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Uninvolved admin assistance needed

    The discussion has been closed and the user blocked indefinitely. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (NAC)

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


    Resolved

    Can an uninvolved admin please consider and close (one way or the other) the discussion above at Proposed ban of Cantaloupe2? Thank you! —Locke Coletc 09:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Done.--v/r - TP 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Enkyo2 making everything personal and being completely incoherent

    I have started two ANI threads on Enkyo in the last few weeks. The first had 3 participants other than me, of whom one agreed with me on the substance, one asked for more info, and one dismissed my concern and closed the thread before I had a response to give the second their answer. The second saw the previous closer return and continue to dismiss my concerns despite an abundance of evidence, despite four other editors either agreeing with me or requesting that user to at least listen to me. It ended by getting archived with no result. I decided to take some of Rjanag's flawed advice and take one of my issues with Enkyo to RSN. In this case my concern was his misrepresentation of very old, primary sources, some of which are in neither English nor Japanese and can't easily be checked by other users. Enkyo then came along and posted a 700-word rant that had almost no relation to the topic of my post, was largely composed in incoherent moon-speak, and made numerous assumptions of bad faith against me. The thread immediately went into TLDR territory, so I can't see it getting resolved there now, but this most recent post proves my earlier complaint that Enkyo needs to start discussing things in plain English (i.e., discussing things coherently). Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    When I read AN/I threads that start "I've raised two threads here in recent weeks..." my heart sinks, because the inference I draw is that having failed to get the desired result twice over, a third equally unproductive thread is going to result. Hijiri, you plead for administrative help: what admin tools or action would you like to see deployed here? Kim Dent-Brown 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    This topic isn't sexy, and so while all but one participant agreed with me the threads got archived before anything was done. That one participant mistakenly assumed this was about content and sourcing rather than user behaviour. I decided to let ANI go for a while, and took one of the issues (which by itself was not a user issue) to RSN. Enkyo immediately proved that one participant wrong, by posting a very long, incomprehensible and completely off-topic rant. My first thread was closed because I had used bad wording: I wanted Enkyo to speak coherently on talk pages (i.e., use plain English) and some other users misinterpreted me as complaining that he was speaking a language other than English. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    By the way, I want an admin (i.e., someone Enkyo can't just dismiss as a troll or a POV-pusher) to tell Enkyo the same thing I (and numerous others before me) have: discuss issues like this coherently and stop misrepresenting sources. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    This new thread is a pretext in a pattern which is not easy to parse neatly -- see here and here. At the same time, Hijiri88 continues "framing" a difficult-to-understand conflict, e.g.,

    This needs to stop.

    Perhaps the fact that this is a pretext needs to be made explicit? I only hope that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm. This targeting pattern does not help our wiki-project. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I had been really hoping this wouldn't happen again, and I know that Enkyo2 has useful things they could contribute...but this is the exact same behavior that has lead to this editor being sanction in the past. In 2009, Enkyo2 (then editing under the name User: Tenmei) was topic banned and mandated to edit under guidance of a mentor, a process which was never very successful (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Tenmei and dispute resolution, and the first four Remedies). In 2011, as a result of Tenmei's editing in Senkaku Islands and related articles, Tenmei was topic banned from the subject indefinitely, banned for one year, and "advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Misplaced Pages editors." (see the first three remedies for the case). The statement above, which Enkyo2 also put on his talk page in a response to the OP, is the exact same style that has been a problem for Enkyo2, seemingly throughout his entire Misplaced Pages career. Perhaps one of the most irritating aspects (at least for more), is the attempt to "illustrate" disputes with graphics, as you can see in User Talk:Enkyo2#Enkyo PLEASE be coherent and stop making unrelated rants on talk pages. I honestly cannot figure out why Enkyo2 writes this way, and I do believe he is sincerely trying to communicate...but the result is invariably the opposite. Sadly...I'm simply not sure that there is a place for Enkyo2 in Misplaced Pages, which simply requires the ability to collaborate with other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Is there a precedent for like a topic ban on "Off-topic or difficult to understand talk page comments"? I have been saying throughout the same thing as you -- Enkyo is a good-faith user who makes a lot of decent edits. But even if all of his content edits were flawless, he needs to be able to communicate with other editors, because some of us have been editing the same area longer than him, and Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. I still think he can improve, but he needs motivation. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Since Enkyo2 started this little campaign against me he's barely gone more that 30 hours without editing Misplaced Pages, but following Qwyrxian's above post he's been out of action for 2 days. This seems very odd given that Qwyrxian appears to be advocating some kind of indefinite block or otherwise much harsher than what I'm asking for. I'd be willing to guess he's waiting for this ANI thread to get archived with no action again. Honestly what I want is a topic ban on "use of translations of pre-modern Japanese works as sources for factual statements". It's a bit of a silly TBAN, because in reality all Wikipedians are supposed to be banned from this kind of activity (misuse of primary sources essentially qualifies as OR), but since Enkyo doesn't seem to know it's not allowed, and since he has been getting away with it for so long and in so many articles (it's probably in the hundreds), it seems appropriate. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Enkyo, you've pasted the same reply above as appears in at least two other places. Copypasting makes it look as if you can't be bothered to address the actual question being asked. Would you leave the question of Hijiri's motivation aside for one moment and consider whether your communication style is optimal? Several editors seem to agree that it isn't. Can you see why this might be? Would you be able to change anything about it? Kim Dent-Brown 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    So...is this silence an indication that editors have to go back to Arbcom and have Enkyo2 banned there a third time in order to get anything done? I don't understand why a user who's twice been admonished and/or banned for the same behavior deserves any more chances, and I don't understand why the community wouldn't act on this.
    I have to say, I'm really sorry about this because, deep down, in all honesty, I strongly suspect that Enkyo2 is probably a genius. Enkyo2 shows a scholarly commitment to deep research, a wide range of knowledge, at least some amount of ability to speak/read multiple languages, a penchant for deep analysis. Unfortunately, Enkyo2 is simply unable to present her/his (I recall it's his, but I'm not entirely certain) put his thoughts into a form that others can understand. Please understand that I mean the following with respect, but Enkyo2's writing reminds me of when the super-advanced alien race (or supercomputer) tries to talk to mere humans, and has concepts and perceptions that humans simply can't understand, so the end result is something between a philsophical treatise and a machine translation. I just don't see how such an individual, who has shown for many years an inability or unwillingness to communicate "on our level", can engage in a collaborative project. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with you completely. But I also suspect that we don't need a genius to tell us what a 19th-century French translation of a 17th-century Japanese work says, when we have English-language sources from top-class scholarly publishing houses that say the same thing (or that don't). As I pointed out on Rjanag's talk page, I'm perfectly willing to help Enkyo, and I'm not arguing for any kind of indefinite block. The question is whether he is willing to accept this. (Or perhaps whether it's my choice to make, given everything that happened while I was away.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    user jerry pepsi continues to be make malicious edits

    Please prevent https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jerry_Pepsi from editing on the wiki page for https://en.wikipedia.org/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating#Season_2

    He just undid our edit "megan is their girlfriend of 3 years and they call themselves a trio" This is factual information that is on the showtime website yet he continues to maliciously undo this edit. We ask that you review his edits and stop him from editing on the PMD page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talkcontribs) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    No opinion on Jerry Pepsi's edits (I think I briefly looked at this last time it was here) but did you (Tvfanatics) just admit to using a shared account? No one's going to criticize you for simply having an s in your username, but "He just undid our edit" (emphasis added) seems to indicate that you are violating WP:NOSHARE. Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    TVFanatics has routinely addressed themselves as a collective, leading to some asking if the (apparently) SPA is associated with the article in question. Having seen the previous threads, TVFanatics has brought this complaint to ANI repeatedly, this being the third attempt. The second caused the page to be fully-protected. During that time TVFanatic made no efforts to engage in talkpage discussion (other than requesting his changes be restored) and then waited for protection to be removed until editing again. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    While: Polyamory: Married & Dating was fully protected, I advised TVFanatic that if he did not engage Jerry Pepsi in meaningful discussion and simply waiting for the protection to run out before continuing on as he had before, I would strongly recommend that he be blocked. TVFanatic ignored my advice and did exactly that, he did not engage Jerry Pepsi in discussion and waited for the protection to lapse, then continued as before. For this reason, I strongly recommend he be blocked for not editing collegially, for WP:IDHT behavior, for bringing disputes to AN/I without engaging the other editor in civil discussion, for personal attacks (on Jerry Pepsi's talk page), for probably having a WP:COI in respect to the program, and for possibly being a shared account. Until TVFanatics can explain what's going on, and assure the community that he understands how things work around here, his disruptive editing needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    User:Tvfanatics

    This is now the third time this situation has been brought here. The first time resulted in no action. The second led to an editing lockdown on the article for four days, along with strong encouragement to this editor that s/he begin engaging with me and other interested editors lest s/he face being blocked.

    Polyamory: Married & Dating. Who would have thought such an article would lead to this. Editor continues to revert without discussion, hiding his reversions among other edits, despite having been advised in edit summaries, the article's talk page and his own talk page.

    • Here is where his incorrect edits were noted on the talk page along with instruction on proper formatting'
    • Here is where it was noted on his/her talk page.

    The diffs in which he/she performs these disruptive edits are too numerous to list.

    His/her ongoing refusal to engage in any level of discussion calls for corrective action. I suggest either blocking the editor for several days or topic-banning him/her from the article until such time as he/she engages in meaningful discussion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    continued harrassment by jerry pepsi

    jerry pepsi continues to harrass me and is now resorting to threats. please stop him from further editing. thanks. (Tvfanatics (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

    Where are the differences showing this? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    This is the fourth time that this editor has brought similar complaints here, the most recent being #user jerry pepsi continues to be make malicious edits. Readers will draw their own conclusions. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Suggestion, resume FPP on the article until both parties are able to discuss the conflict (I see movement by one, but not the other) and encourage TVFanatics to research core WP policies and extend to other articles of interest. While Jerry Pepsi has logged some ANI reports here, I don't feel they were in retaliation but frustration from what he has been trying to do; explain to TVFanatics what they are doing incorrectly. TVFanatics has not (as of the last time I saw their contributions list) edited outside of this article other than user talk pages and other WP notice boards. I believe the onus is on TVFanatics to show competence, patience, a willingness to work with others, and at the very least a scope of articles he would work with other than this one. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Bushranger: I had no idea that either of these last two reports were filed, since TV Fanatics failed to notify me of either of them as required. I have repeatedly asked him/her to engage about the article and have received nothing but threats and accusations in response. If you have further suggestions beyond what I've already done to encourage this person or people to work in a meaningful collaborative fashion, please, make them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    192, that simply won't work--if TVFanatics refuses to engage on the talk page, then the article stays locked indefinitely. Yes, the onus is on TVFanatics to work with others--if the user does not do so, and instead continues to edit war, then the correct result is a block for TVFanatics, not indefinite page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand your disagreement. I suggested Full Protection until we see discussion from both parties (which we currently see from one). 192.76.82.89 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: I see now how what I said could be misinterpreted. I believe we are on the same page. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Edits (vandalism?) on my talk page User talk:Qed237

    Hi

    Did not know where to turn so I went here. Just tell me i I should take this somewhere else.

    I just logged in after being away from computer for a couple of days and saw disturbing edits on my talkpage. Even if i have not (yet) made any posts since 2 September i got several warnings (level 3 and 4) today (4 Sept) from different IP:s all of which belong to the same address in Liverpool, and these are my first warnings ever. Also I looked at the contributions for these IP:s and their only edit was on my talkpage. Probably I somehow got this IP user angry for about a week ago when me and several other users started removing some unsourced statistics on 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season based on WP:OR and a reached consensus at WT:FOOTY. The IP user never said what articles the warnings relate to.

    Is it okay for me to just remove them or should someone else do that so I dont get blocked for some warnings i dont understand? Do these IPs need to be blocked? Maybe semi-protect the talk-page (but that is not great either if i need ta talk with some friendly IP). I would not be to happy if these warnings got me blocked.

    The IP-users are ,,.

    Thanks for every help i can get! QED237 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    It certainly appears to be a single dissatisfied editor who is logging out in order to harass you anonymously. You are certainly entitled to remove anything you wish from your own talk page. You can archive it if you prefer. Here's some further info. ChakaKong 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help. My concern is that if I do remove these edits, next time someone will look at the page-history and see that I removed a level 4 warning. Then that person gives me a level 4 or put me up for a block. Therefore i thought i should ask here and I have seen warnings been removed by admins when they where wrong. QED237 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Those warnings will not get you blocked, they're obvious trolling -- real warnings would have links to the articles where the alleged misdeeds took place. I've removed the posts for you, so any bad karma is on me. Best reaction to trolls is to ignore them, however if it continues you can request short term semi protection at WP:RPP. NE Ent 10:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you! QED237 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Persistent disruption in Talk:Windows XP

    Hi.

    We seem to have a trolling issue in Talk:Windows XP. Someone there thinks if you are using Windows 8, you are a "retarded moron". Actually, I have no idea how to handle such situations, even I don't know if I am in the right place; only I strongly feel an entire community should not be offended that grossly.

    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Seems a basic WP:NOTAFORUM violation. If they do it again, a 24 hour block should give them a clue.--v/r - TP 18:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with TParis's assessment and suggestion. It's not a constructive comment and does not serve the purpose of improving the article. --Kinu /c 18:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Dropped an ANI notification on their page for you. Blackmane (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Codename Lisa - perhaps you should go back to school for reading and comprehension. I said " I want a computer, not a basket of "apps" for retarded morons!". So, don't come here pleading wounded and offended, as you are trying to do, and appealing to other to fell equally offended, with your "I strongly feel an entire community should not be offended that grossly".
    But is just dso happens that you seem to have forgotten to mention that you reverted my edit FOUR times. You also violated this page, which says clearly in bold and italics and in bright orange that you must notify others involved if you are going to report them here.
    I have in the meantime reported you for a 3RR violation.
    As for the other editors who have since written to me, thanks for your efforts. But I would have expected that you look at both sides before judging. That has been the only constant of justice since time immemorial. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've closed the report since it's already being handled here.--v/r - TP 19:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    NO, it is not being handled here - kindly re-instate that report. I logged it, therefore you deleting it - and without consultation is a gross violation in itself. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    I have re-iterated the closure of the report at ANEW and would ask Gabrial to post the diffs he is complaining of here. It will be much better if we can look at both editors' actions in the same place. Kim Dent-Brown 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    A quick look at the history shows that the talk page comment was reverted 4 times, so presumably that's what Gabriel is referring to. MChesterMC (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Yes. Isn't "adding offensive language" is the #3 exception to WP:3RR? Although I wouldn't know because I am using Windows 8 apps and according to RGC here, I am a retarded moron. 188.245.106.131 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia I would like to offer you a nice piece of advice since I can see you are obviously very frustrated and annoyed, and I can understand why. Please read WP:CALM and take a day off to go do something fun in real life. Your current path will end up in you being blocked for disruptive editing for a period of time. Please, take a moment to relax and collect your thoughts. Happy editing. Technical 13 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    New User possibly promoting Lyons Press books

    Another Admin has blocked Steverich777 Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    I have just come across the edits of a new user User:Steverich711. The account was created today and all their edits have been to add Further Reading sections and items to articles. On the surface it seems fine, but looking into the edits more closely all the edits are to add book references to books published by Lyons Press, and one of the books was only published yesterday. Now I'm unsure what to do about this, if anything, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Is it advertising in a round about way for Lyons Press? It's on a large range of articles so it's not like they're just adding books they like to a subject area, they're as disparate as the Dead Sea, Jordan Sea and the Titanic, with the same book further reading being added to different articles in many places. It looks to me like it's advertising, but I'd like the advice of others. Canterbury Tail talk 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    I see the editor has been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt

    The issue of which units of measure to use in the article Falkland Islands has been simmering for some years with User:Kahastok and User:Wee Curry Monster arguing for imperial units and User:Michael Glass and myself arguing for metric units. In an act of blatant Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying, User:Kahastok created the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS giving his reason as The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles. A similar sentiment was expressed here by Wee Curry Monster. I have tried, so far in vain, to have this page neutralised but eventually both Michael and I took less and less interest in the Falkland Islands article while Wee Curry Monster has retired from Misplaced Pages after receiving an indefinite topic ban for disruption relating to the Falkland Islands.

    Recently there was a move to get the Falkland Islands article up to WP:GA status. During the course of events, the question of units of measure came up. In the resulting discussion, the consensus was that metric units should be used, but Kahastok behaved in such a disgraceful way that in the course of one evening he succeeded in driving OrangeJacketGuy (here) and Travellers & Tinkers (here) away from the article, he had MilborneOne (here) asking why he bothered to help and he totally misrepresented me here when he wrote "He would also say that the UK is also metric-only" (BTW, I as the principal editor of this assessment of metrication in the UK and Metrication in the United Kingdom# Current usage. The full discussion can be seen at Talk:Falkland Islands# Metric v. Imperial

    I request that appropriate action be taken against User:kahastok for his gross incivility earlier on this evening. Martinvl (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)

    Since posting this complaint, User:Mtpaley has also indicated that unless a solution can be found, he too will be moving on from the project. Martinvl (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    Not entirely true. I am just trying to finialise the Falkland unit wars and I have deliberately not expressed any opinions about the editors or the subject. I think the entire debate has got totally out of control and it needs some definitive external input to resolve it and give the definitive answer. I recently posted a comment on the talk page saying that in 24 hours I will escalate this and try and finalise it. Mtpaley (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    I think this issue has got personal and it needs a independent and binding decision to resolve it - see my recent Talk entries on the page. Mtpaley (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    It may or may not be worth noting that after I had clearly disembarked from the whole mess on the talk page, that user continued to post in my talk page, clearly after anything constructive could have been said. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    I haven't participated in this specific discussion on units or ever interacted with User:Martinvl or User:Michael Glass as far as I remember, but my experience with User:Kahastok on related subjects concurs with Martin's observations on his behaviour. When changes to Kahastok's preferred text were proposed on talk pages, he frequently obfuscated the discussion with distortions and unfounded harsh criticism, aided by a systemic bias that exists on those topics due to language, and leading to an inevitable lack of consensus. As a result, even though I brought lots of arguments and sources, I could hardly ever affect any sentence of the articles.
    As an example, Kahastok's latest feat involving my work has been directed at a review that I've been writing . Firstly, he attacked it with distortions like the invention of a clause in a treaty . I cannot prove in one sentence that his accusation was worthless, but it may be evaluated by reading the review and checking, e.g., the authority of the sources (I beg you do that before buying his claims). After he failed to convince User:MarshalN20 from neglecting the review, he joined an attack by User:Wee Curry Monster, like in the old days before WCM was banned from this subject, in an attempt that ultimately succeeded in persuading MarshalN20 to stop requesting sources and clarifications on the review's talk page , leaving everyone more exposed to the customary obfuscation . As I see it, MarshalN20 did it for reasons unrelated to contribution potential or WP policy, but rather akin to bullying intimidation .
    After months of interactions with Kahastok, I've experienced little more from him than this confrontational style filled with distortions, dubious competence and attempts to preserve a status quo that he likes. One that is far from a NPOV, as I demonstrate in the review (which simply scratches the surface). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    I have done little editing of Falkland Islands articles for years. Despite this, Kahastok keeps on dragging my name into the discussion. The way that Kahastok behaves towards those he disagrees with can be seen from . I have made an effort to be polite to Kahastok but all has been in vain. I can see from the discussion here that I am not the only editor to have this trouble with Kahastok. Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    (Pfainuk and Justin in Michael's link are Kahastok and WCM's previous nicks). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Andres kindly notified me about this matter and also mentions me here. I would like to start by stating that User:Basalisk has in no form or way ever bullied me (bullying defined as a behavioral pattern). Not to patronize Andres, but perhaps he meant to state that Basalisk's statement could be taken as a kind of intimidation. Regardless, the possible problem of intimidation has nothing to do with Basalisk, as the "hold" on my account is monitored by the Arbitration Committee. In fact, Basalisk is doing the opposite, essentially protecting my "liberty" to edit WP. But this is another matter.
    With regards to the "Falklands Measurement System Dispute", all I recommend is that the matter be directly taken to the Arbitration Committee. This is a long-winded conflict with too many involved users & muddled positions. Using other dispute resolution venues will not solve the problem. Moreover, this "measurements disagreement" is not a content dispute, but rather a mixture between policy & conduct, so ArbComm is perfectly capable of dealing with it.
    Best regards.--MarshalN20 | 04:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    That's what I meant, thanks MarshalN20. I used the wrong word, sorry. And I didn't mean to accuse User:Basalisk, though I wish she/he would have reacted otherwise. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Can the originator of this report please clarify exactly what is being reported:

    • The heading suggests disruption of a GA attempt, yet there is no diff or link given to show that a GA attempt is taking place or of evidence of disruption to it.
    • Bully is mentioned in the report with no link or diff showing bullying.
    • There are suggestions of disgtraceful behaviour driving editors away, with no links of diffs demonstrating disgraceful behaviour.
    • The final sentence suggests there was incivility, again with no links or diffs showing any evidence.
    • Notification of this report to those involved have different headings - some call it disruption, some incivility.

    I suggest that the reporter clarifies the reason and produces appropriate evidence, or withdraws the report. Credibility gap (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    • My present role in this is that I am supervising MarshalN20's edit in this area, per an ArbCom amendment. My view is that this report is mainly hot air. Kahastok's actions are not disruptive, and regardless what Martinvl thinks, Kahastok is entitled to an opinion and to argue in aid of it. My opinion is that this is a content dispute and when Martinvl says "disrupting GA drive" what he actually means is "disagreeing with my point of view". I have to say I think the suggestion that this go to ArbCom is misguided in the extreme as this a) isn't a user conduct issue and b) not all avenues of dispute resolution have been pursued. I do not even think this is appropriate for ANI and this should probably be withdrawn. Basalisk berate 06:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If Basalisk looks at the thread carefully, he will see that a lot of the contention centres around the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - a page which Kahastok asserts is consensus and a page that I asset is an attempt at WP:BULLYING. What is this page anyway? Is it policy? Is it a Guideline? Is it an essay? The page does not say. Last night I attempted to get clarification on the issue last night by proposing the page as a "Draft Misplaced Pages Policy". Kahastok reverted my actions.
    May I respectfully request that Basalisk (or any other administrator) assist in clarifying what this page actually is. If it is a bully-stick, then, as per WP:CIVILITY it has no place in Misplaced Pages. If it is a Misplaced Pages policy, guideline or essay, it should be properly marked as such and made visible to all Misplaced Pages editors, not stuck away in a workgroup subfolder. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Given the above, editors will be astonished to learn that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was in fact endorsed WP:FALKLANDSUNITS at the time. He said that editors should follow it to the letter, lest a "civil war" break out. That "civil war" is what he has since trying to spark, by bringing this up every few months ever since.
    All in all, this POV push has been going on for four and a half years, causing massive disruption to the topic - in fact, until the recent unpleasantness with Gaba I would have said (and did in fact say) that it was worse than everything the page has suffered in terms of Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. The only respite was the period immediately after the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was reached. That is, until Martin decided to renege on the deal, pretending that he had never endorsed it.
    We need this POV push to finish, but that cannot be by sacrificing basic Misplaced Pages values - by allowing Martin to use Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool for the completion of metrication in the United Kingdom. And it needs to finish in the long term. There is no point in reaching a deal, only for Martin to renege on it again, in the hopes of forcing the deal to be steadily more metric. Given how many times he has tried to fool or trick me and others, and given how many times he has tried to game the system, my ability to assume his good faith has long since evaporated.
    Martin the only one who wants this to continue. We should be in the business of stopping him for the good of the topic. I believe that a topic ban for Martinvl is the only way of protecting Misplaced Pages from this POV push in the long term.
    I reverted his "Draft Misplaced Pages Policy" banner because it claimed that the page was a draft and did not represent a consensus. This is false, and he knows it. I believe that was the only reason it was tagged.
    I don't have much time to write much more than that, but if people want more detail or diffs, I may be back later or tomorrow. Kahastok talk 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Kahastok’s statement is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and personal attacks.
    • An "uneasy truce" (my wording here does not equal "consensus" and much less "endorsement". I stepped back from pressing for common sense in respect of units of measure because at the time Wee Curry Monster was trying to steer the article to being a WP:GA. I knew that the article might well fail due to shortcomings in the area the units of measure, so I was letting the GA reviewer do the work. To use a chess analogy, this was a Poisoned Pawn Variation. Since IU have never endorsed the page, Kahastok's use of the word " renege" is totally uncivil.
    • My ability to assume good faith in him disappeared when he tried to sabotage the writing of Metrication of British Transport - the only support that he had was from two sockpuppets of user:DeFacto - the same sockmaster who controlled User:Ex-Stanley, a vocal supported of Kahastok in the earlier parts of the discussion from which this WP:ANI request sprung. After Ex-Stanley was exposed, I tried to strike his comments out, but Kahastok reinstated the comments. If Kahastok's arguments are sound, why does he have to rely on a sockpuppert for support?
    • I think that the real reason that Kahastok reverted by "Draft Policy Banner" on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was because he knows that the page will not stand up to any proper scrutiny – after all, is that page a policy document, a guideline, an essay or some unspecified rubbish? Unless it is properly scrutinised by the community at large it counts for nothing!
    • I will not answer his personal attack of POV pushing - I would like to Misplaced Pages community at large to do that; in the first instance they should establish a baseline from which to work by passing a verdict on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.
    I repeat my invitation to User:Basalisk (or any other administrator) to require that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be classified as a policy and that it be scrutinised by the Misplaced Pages community at large. This can be done by reinstating the {{Draft proposal}} template at the top of its page. (Its prescriptive language is the sort of language that one would find in a policy document rather than in a guideline or an essay).
    Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    It seems odd that Martin feels that an MOS-compliant article will not pass the GA criteria, but an article that for no apparent reason falls short of the MOS - as he demands - will pass. This does not make sense, and any vaguely sane criteria would say the opposite. If the GA criteria say that we are actually not allowed to follow our own Manual of Style, then there's something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. The point here is Martin trying to push his own POV on to UK-related articles: Martin trying to campaign for metrication in the UK by means of Misplaced Pages.
    Whether Martin likes it or not, the MOS calls for imperial units in some contexts for UK-related articles such as this one. We're not talking about every context. Most are metric-first. But Martin's argument effectively boils down to either arguing that the UK should be the only country in the world not allowed to use the units in use locally, or that all British people use kilometres really and just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners. The same applies to the Falklands - currently governed (legitimately or not) as a British Overseas Territory that we have no reason to suppose is any different. There is absolutely no reason why we should not follow the MOS.
    I see he's still trying to argue that there's a difference between accepting the consensus and accepting the consensus. Fact is, Martin acted for all the world as though he accepted the consensus for months on end, advising editors to stick to it "to the letter". He apparently later decided that he wanted the "civil war" after all, and has been going about trying to set it off ever since.
    I did object to Metrication of British Transport. I haven't looked at it in a long time, but at the time it relied pretty much exclusively on a form of OR that I have seen Martin use frequently: if he can find a single document that only uses one system of measurement - even if it doesn't actually mention systems of measurement at all - he will write the article to say that the organisation that wrote it uses that system of measurement exclusively. If you accept that there is even a possible good faith belief that such practice is OR, you should reject Martin's claim that my conduct can only have been in bad faith, because that was my objection. Excluding all the OR, the topic appeared to me to fail WP:GNG, and thus I nominated it for deletion accordingly. I also tried to remove some of the OR, but met with stiff resistance - including from Martin, who insisted among other things that the burden of consensus is reversed for large-scale changes.
    WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a Wikiproject guideline, just like many others across Misplaced Pages. It represents the current state of WikiProject consensus. Tagging it as something that is "definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption" is highly misleading. Martin knows that. I know that. I contend that his tagging it as not consensus when he knows full well that it is consensus is disruptive. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Gentlemen. Anyone who knows anything about the Falkland Islands would agree that they an inherently controversial topic. However, most would have expected this would have been due to their status as disputed between the UK and Argentina, their naming as Falkland or Malvinas, coastal, fishing, and mineral rights, a reasonably recent war, and similar related matters. Who would have guessed that the most controversial issue would be whether to list distances with miles first and km second or vice versa? For the love of Mike (or Miguel), is this really the most important thing to argue over? Pick an intelligent but otherwise uninvolved moderator (honestly, 99.9% of editors will not be biased in any direction on this), or hold an RFC that an admin will close, and settle it. Compared to the far more controversial things about the Islands, readers of the article will really not care very much which unit of measurement is listed first. This argument is a strong candidate for WP:LAME. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    How many RFCs do we have to have? We've had plenty of them before. This has been going on for four and a half years, you don't think we've tried RFCs?
    I don't want to continually discuss this any more than anyone else does. I would be very happy if nobody ever brought it up again. The only person who insists on bringing this up over and over and over is Martin. That's why I want him stopped. So that the rest of us can move on.
    RFC should not be an iterative process. It is not reasonable to hold RFC after RFC after RFC until one of the RFCs finally accepts the POV push, any more than you hold election after election after election until the public finally elects the candidate the government wants. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Link to one, probably the last one - how was it closed? Were they really all "no consensus"? Have you considered just letting the other side win? Is it really that bad whether miles are listed second - or first? --GRuban (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    What if he were insisting it be written in US English in violation of WP:ENGVAR - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting it be written using "Malvinas", instead of "Falkland" at every instance of the word - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting that instead of basing our history on a balance of reliable sources, we instead concentrated on pro-British or pro-Argentine sources - is that "really that bad"? We should be against POV pushing at every turn, in favour of neutrality and the rules we use to enforce them. Nobody has given a single good reason on talk not to follow the MOS, which calls for a mixed system. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Contributors to the debate to date are:
    By my counting, this give 7 editors favouring metric-first and 4 favouring imperial first (one of whom is a sockpuppet and should not count). This is hardly consensus in favour of imperial units. Therefore, in spite of what Kahastok might say, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not reflect consensus. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Put up or shut up" - in this case let the Misplaced Pages community at large judge the worthiness of the page.
    Martinvl (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    So now you're trying to claim that the standard burden of consensus, that a consensus remains unless it is overturned, no longer exists when you don't like it? More WP:GAMEs methinks. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    No I am not. What I have noticed is that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not catalogued as a formal guideline, it is not part of the MOS tree structure and it is not mentioned in MOS. The previous comments show that the claim the page reflect consensus is dubious. These two points make the page worthless. I am trying to regularise the situation by bringing it out into the open, what are you trying to hide? Martinvl (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I believe that there is no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. WP:MOSNUM should apply. Michael Glass (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    It would be great if we could trust editors to apply WP:MOSNUM in the spirit that was intended. Unfortunately, several years of experience would seem to demonstrate that we cannot. I would be happy to have a version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that does nothing but prescribe the recommendations for UK-related articles at WP:UNITS, though I note that that is the intention of the existing version. Prescription is good because it gives no room for doubt or misinterpretation and as little room as possible for WP:GAMEs.
    I do nonetheless see no point at all in resolving this dispute only for Martin to open it again in three or six months time. As he has been doing every few months for years now. We need some guarantee that this is not coming back. And my major concern is that if we resolve anything here to mutual satisfaction, it will only give us a ceasefire in Martin's "civil war", before he reneges on the deal again and comes back with all guns blazing. Thus, I will not support or accept any change without a guarantee, enforceable by block, that this is the end of the matter - at least so far as Martin is concerned.
    Martin asks what I have to hide. My answer is, Martin, when did you stop beating your wife? I've given my objection to your tagging the page as not having reached consensus - when we all know very well that it has reached consensus - several times. It is not as though there aren't WikiProject consensuses on style documented at similar pages all over Misplaced Pages. Here's one. Here's another. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is hardly unusual. Kahastok talk 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Seriously, you're arguing over whether to put imperial or metric measurements first? I don't know if you all realise how ridiculous this argument is and how ridiculous it is making all the involved parties look. Just put it in alphabetical order, honestly. It is unbelievable that there was an RFC to discuss it let alone several. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    How do I deal with paid editors?

    There are quite a few of us who routinely deal with spamming. If the editor is clearly not here to help and is just a spammer, especially if indicated as such from the username, we'll take care of them. Seraphimblade 07:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    I know there is no explicit restriction on paid editors, but doing NPP I noticed a user with an obvious username who had created a spam article copied off of a website (actually, a google search reveals several identical websites) as their only edit. WP:PAID and WP:COI talk about this sort of thing, but I didn't find any way to deal with it - I'm not going to post on the user's talk since I'm going to bed right now. If anyone thinks I should have notified even though said user wasn't named or wants to attempt communication with them, go to my CSD log and it should be pretty obvious who/what I'm talking about. Also, if there's any reply here please ping me, I'm definitely not going to start watching AN/I again anytime soon. Thanks, Ansh666 06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    In the abstract, if you believe an editor is here for the sole purpose of advertising, on the basis of both edit(s) and username, he may be reported to WP:UAA. I and many other administrators routinely block accounts that were obviously created for the purpose of spamming. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Page deleted and AffinitymarketingAUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked by User: CambridgeBayWeather, page ande user tagged my me.
    Have you got WP:TWINKLE switched on, Ansh666? It makes tagging (a) the article as promotional, and (b) the username as promotional very simple. (If Twinkle wasn't around, I probably wouldn't know how to do it. Also, it also may have not necessarily been a paid editor, but someone with a conflict of interest.) Pete in Australia (where the company is located, btw) aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, if you take a look at my userpage or realize that I have a CSD log, it should be clear that I do have Twinkle. I just didn't know how to deal with it, since it's my first real encounter with it; I'd say that given the "marketing" part of their username it's probably a PR firm. Thanks for all the help, everyone. Ansh666 19:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Ansh666, let me reinforce what Someguy says. I'll often go through CAT:CSD deleting spam, and whenever I find a spammy userpage by someone with no other substantial edits, I'll levy an indefinite block as a spam-only account. Many of us administrators will do the same; file a report at WP:AIV for spam in mainspace or tag userspace pages with {{db-spamuser}} (instead of {{db-g11}}) to tell the next admin who patrols CAT:CSD that this is an account that needs to be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Alright, I'll remember to do that from now on. Thanks again for all the tips. Ansh666 07:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Competence/tendentious issues relating to Indian politics

    Disruption bished. Kim Dent-Brown 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    I am at a loss and would appreciate community input. TheWikiIndian (talk · contribs) registered in late July 2013, following a brief incarnation as IndiaNewsTV (talk · contribs). Their stated aim is to "edit articles connected to politics of India". So far, that has resulted in edits almost exclusively to articles related to the Aam Aadmi Party, people associated with that party and people associated with populist movements related to it, such as India Against Corruption and Right to Information activism. They have professed a desire not to be seen at venues such as this because they create battlegrounds but, I'm afraid, the battlelines have already been set and they indicate quite severe issues regarding competence and tendentiousness, not to mention the occasional comment that is completely unnecessary, eg: this.

    Some examples of their mass removals, based usually on idiosyncratic interpretations of policies such as OR, NPOV, FRINGE, SOAP, PRIMARY etc (for a relative newcomer, they cite a surprisingly wide range of often rather obscure policies).

    If anyone dare risk the health of their eyes by examining Talk:Aam Aadmi Party then they will see some truly specious efforts throughout sections such as this, this and this. I did try to enlighten them generally here and Qwyrxian is among others who have tried but we seem to have a lot of disruption being caused by someone who is on a mission, and that mission is not to improve the encyclopedia or - if it is - is based on a very misguided understanding of policies and an application of peculiar arguments such as that something that happened in 2010 was supported by a party that did not exist until 2012/2013.

    There is more to this than mere content disputes. What, if anything, can be done? - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Oh, a couple of very specific examples of apparent incompetence/disruption (take your pick) are this effort, which removed some allegedly mirrored content from a source that existed before our article did, and this, which was apparently a copyvio removal but has resulted in every request for a link to the blog being ignored. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Obvious disruption is obvious. Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Excessive promotional links?

    I'm being outgunned in this discussion and am unwilling to take action against a perceived consensus. Yet surely we don't need a gallery of a dozen commercials to educate us about these admittedly very interesting horses. Help, please! Bjenks (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

     Done — The links to which you are referring were always in violation of WP:COPYLINK, as they are copyrighted material of Budweiser (and/or its umbrella companies). To that end, I've removed the lot. DKqwerty (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Falkland Islands page protection

    Being discussed on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    I have protected Falkland Islands on the wrong version of a revert war. Too many people, including administrators, were using reverts rather than discussion. I welcome review of this, and I really encourage discussion on the talk page, please. Jonathunder (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Discuss it on the talk page, please. Jonathunder (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Generally yes, if it's just a call for admin eyes.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal Attacking

    Jeromesandilanico has apologised for his comments. A reminder that in a text based communication environment, tone of voice is noticeably absent so comments can be easily misunderstood. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    Please, give User:Jeromesandilanico a short block for disruptive and aggressive editing. This JSC uses quite some insulting and degrading language. I'm trying to teach him that his working experience should be considered Original Research, it's not like what Wikipedians should do. Instead of acknowlidging this, and looking for sources he tries to own the article, and yells at another contributor. Na Na Utlog (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    His behavior isn't great but other than suggesting that you're not comprehending something, I don't see the insult.--v/r - TP 17:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Saying "Clearly you are out of your mind" and implying that NNU is "a person who has a very low comprehension skill" is overly direct. I have asked the user to be more polite. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC).
    I already apologized if the user felt that way but im not referring to him for its just to make my point on the argument. But to end and patch things up once and for all Again, I Apologize to the user.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ubikwit

    Ubikwit blocked by user:Alex Bakharev. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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


    I am deeply concerned about Ubikwit's treatment of me, which has culminated in his most recent post on my user talk page. He vocally objected to a finding of fact (which was implemented by an arbitration clerk earlier today) I proposed against him in the recent Tea Party movement case. I explained my position to him several times, but he then took the matter onto my talk page with this comment (which was brusque but acceptable). After I replied to that, he returned with this condescending remark:

    • I would suggest that you seek before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality to avoid culpability for your mistakes, even if other members of the Committee put you up to drafting that FoF

    At that point, I collapsed the thread, which ought to have made it clear I did not wish to engage any more in such an unreasonable discussion. Ubikwit then posted a new section on my talk page, which made the aggressiveness and impoliteness of his previous comments pale in comparison. In that new post, he said:

    • Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce?

    This is a textbook ad hominem, and uses personal information about me that Ubikwit may have learned on an outing thread at Wikipediocracy. (Ubikwit has previously indicated he learned about Newyorkbrad's real life occupation from that same site – see , last paragraph of diff.) I've nothing against people who read Wikipediocracy, which many editors generally believe can contain valid criticism, but using personal information about an arbitrator to bully or criticise him after the case in question was closed is not acceptable. Ubikwit's comment above comes after his similar comments on the arbitration case talk page:

    • you, being an undergraduate law student have not earned my respect
    • You are an undergraduate law student that seems to think he owns and is above the law

    I originally overlooked these two latter comments because they were made in the course of arbitration business, but they must be taken into consideration due to Ubikwit's latest comment on my talk page. Arbitrators are expected to have thick skin, and I suspect I have a greater tolerance for this kind of nonsense than most editors, but I will not tolerate Ubikwit persistently posting venom on my talk page. I have therefore brought the matter here so that an uninvolved administrator can review and act on it. Thank you, AGK 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Agree that this is textbook violation of WP:NPA, with mafia-style capisce to emphasize the threat of personal life details. This should be dealt with severely. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    It should be dealt with, sure, but I think users coming out of an Arbcom case should be dealt some slack. This is venting which is not disruptive to the community at large. I'm not saying that Arbs should be expected to put up with anything that is thrown at them, but a little of this should be expected to come with the territory. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) FormerIP: Agreed both that arbitrators are not expected to be punching bags, and that this sort of thing comes with the territory. I think I struck an appropriate balance in my statement between making it clear I don't want to punish valid criticism, and showing that Ubikwit's comments went beyond even the limits that apply when it comes to arbitrators. AGK 23:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    LOL, the use of "capisce" = mafia? What other commonly-used Italian terms uttered in this context would you think are suggestive of mafia-style threats? Some? Most? All? Is the mere use of Italian in a contentious conversation enough for you to invoke the specter of the mafia? The more important question is how much of what Ubikwit said constitutes undisclosed private information. AGK acknowledges being from Scotland and I seem to recall him acknowledging himself as a law student. So, the real issue here would seem to be that Ubikwit brought this up in a disagreement. Not seeing how that is even remotely of concern on its own.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think you misremember: I have not stated on Misplaced Pages what I read. (Although it hardly diminishes the other conduct, I don't think capisce connoted organised crime…) AGK 23:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    You identified as an undergraduate on your userpage since April up to just two weeks ago. Are you saying you have never stated that you are studying or are interested in law? Not sure if that's a terribly meaningful detail.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Don't think there's any outing issues here, though I do agree with Binksternet that it's very disruptive. Everything Ubikwit's said about AGK can be found on his userpage or in its history; and while Brad doesn't declare his identity as publicly, he also doesn't hide it (his real name is featured on two pages linked to from his userpage). I will never ever get how people don't realize how childish they look when they recite someone's own userpage to them as if that means anything. It's just... dumb. If something's on someone's userpage, it's clearly something that they don't have a problem with strangers knowing, yet all the time you see people throwing such things back at people with menacing "I know who you are" tones. — PinkAmpers& 23:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    Exactly. On my user page I say I live in Oakland but if another editor told me that my "actions have consequences in this world" and that I was a wannabe something from Oakland then I would immediately report the threat. There is no point in arguing whether the real life details were previously revealed by AGK. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Blocked for two weeks Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    Absurd. Reeks of lèse-majesté.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    I can only repeat my notice on User_talk:Ubikwit: "I think you are right the arbitrator thing had some bearing. If I bumped into an edit like this with a legal threat (... I understand that NYB is an attorney, according to Wikipediocracy, well, as I am not a complete stranger to attorneys and court proceedings, I would suggest that you seek the advice of NYB before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality...) and outing (reiterating real time information of a wikipedian that the wikipedian have blanked himself is an outing) I would probably blocked the author indefinitely. Since I know that you are disturbed by a result of an arbitration, since administrators and arbitrators are somehow expected to be targets of attacks of disturbed users and since I know that you (despite your long block list) is a valuable contributor (only valuable contributors have their cases considered in Arbcom) I only gave you the two weeks block..." Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Bullshit. No "legal threat" was made and no "outing" occurred. Were AGK not an Arb or some other privileged editor than no block would have occurred. Your laughably unbelievable claim that you actually went easier on him because AGK is an Arb is a nice try, but still obvious bullshit. Ubikwit was being rude, sure, but not without merit and was certainly not as rude as some of your admin peers or AGK's fellow arbitrators have been in plain sight. How many of them get two week blocks on command?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Good block. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Good Block Ubikwit's browbeating tactics were a vile and unacceptable breach of policy. Glad to see that a sysop put a stop to them, and I hope Ubikwit will learn from this mistake. Herr Kommisar 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I was also disturbed by Ubikwit's "suggestion" when I first saw it, because I felt it either blatantly violated WP:NLT or came perilously close to doing so. I didn't confront Ubikwit about it at the time because I realized he was under stress and should probably be given a chance to cool off, but if he says anything else that even vaguely smells like a legal threat, I will most likely indef-block him until he fully retracts any such talk (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately support block I am only here because both AGK's and Ubikwit's talkpages have been on my watchlist for ages. Although we allow people to occasionally vent, I was shocked and disturbed by Ubikwit's post on AGK's talkpage - it was essentially "I disagree so vehemently, I'm going to Wikistalk the hell out of you". The post also included bizarre accusations of "unilateral arb actions" (huh? What? ArbCom is a committee, not an individual). We don't accept threats on this project - especially threats to WP:HOUND others in an extreme manner. Although Arbs have accepted "public office", harassment and hounding is NOT a part of the job description, nor should it be permitted. This is vile and disturbing behaviour from someone who should know better, and should also be able to act more like a rational adult ES&L 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support I didn't agree with the Arbcom decision in that case either but the comments made by Ubikwit are unacceptable. It could be that they are just pissed and needed to vent (I have certainly been in that situation myself) but its no excuse. At minimum they need a block for a few days to calm down and take a break. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • In no way can I feel that what Ubikwit said was acceptable, but at the same time, I think it's understandable that someone who has just been sanctioned would be at less than their best, so I'd prefer to have seen it shrugged off. Maybe every arbitrator should be given a flame-retardant suit. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I've ignored plenty of attacks on me, and listened to many other bits of valid criticism, but still, remember that Arbitrators are people too. NW (Talk) 04:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support block - Two weeks cool down should be enough to see if it is just the user "not being at their best" or if something more drastic is warranted. Outing or doxing, threats, and "capisce" (I have not heard it used in English outside of threatening emphasis)... not exactly the kind of behaviour we expect from any editor. If a decision falls against you, it's time for introspection, not putting on a merkin and dancing atop the Reichstag building. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Support Just off ArbCom or not, that's absolutely unacceptable. I might have done one week instead of two but if Ubikwit appeals and understands the problem, it can be lifted. KrakatoaKatie 05:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring, soapboxing at Zayed University

    A few days ago I reported one account that was issuing death threats over this article, and now I have at least two SPAs adding unsourced and poorly sourced negative content to the article, essentially soapboxing because I assume they have a bone to pick with the school. See for example this diff, which was done by 201041252a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after the user reverted for the third time, and after I posted a warning on their talk page. I'm also up against 3RR at this point, but I don't think these people should be allowed to edit the article at all - unsourced negative claims are just as bad as someone adding gushing promotional language about the school. §FreeRangeFrog 05:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    I've cleaned up many of the obvious issues but the controversy section needs to be looked at for WP:UNDUE and to make sure the sources are appropriate. --NeilN 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The redlinked users adding negative material have been warned. Bishonen | talk 05:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC).
    I've blocked one for edit-warring and done a revert. All the controversies are sourced but I agree that it needs to be checked. But it does sound as though there have been problems there. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Admin wants to keep sockpuppet tag on my user page so others can keep reverting my edits

    User:Toddst1 keeps adding a sockpuppet tag on my user profile page and has threatened to block me if I remove it. If other editors see this tag they are likely to revert all my edits because the tag states: "This account has been blocked for a period of time due to the operator's abusive use of one or more accounts." The SPI proved that User:Brinkidiom was not me but someone on a different continent. . See also my talk page. --Fareed30 (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    (non-admin observation) It's not User:Brinkidiom, but User:22 Male Cali that you were blocked for. As WP:SOCK#LEGIT states, "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose." You did not, you were called out on it and it was decided that your use of the alternate account was not in a way that is approved of, and you must now suffer the consequences. Those consequences, though, do not include people being likely to revert your edits - that's not what the tag is for at all. Ansh666 07:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've served my sentence. I didn't use 2 accounts on the same page, except only one time which was by mistake. Where does it mention that an active editor must be tagged on his user profile page with ((sockpuppeteer|timeblocked|confirmed))? Is there any other editor tagged this way or is it just me? I made one simple mistake and this was squashed but it seems that User:Toddst1 is not satisfied with the result so he wants to pick a fight with me in order to reblock me.--Fareed30 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Fareed, you undermine your credibility when you misstate what happened in your opening post and you fail to notify Toddst1. I've done that for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    @User:Ansh666 most people wont even know what the tag means and they will automatically start reverting User:Fareed30. As for User:Todd why does he insist the tag stay? If Fareed learned his lesson and isnt using the other account then whats the problem? Caden 10:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) While we're correcting the record, you and 22 Male Cali both edited four articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    I have to say it is an unusual use of the template, and not something I think the community broadly supports (i.e. punitive). The wording of the template (in its various forms) implies use for currently blocked sockpuppeteers. So if someone's block has expired and they are returned to good standing in our community then they should be allowed to exercise the normal control over their user page. --Errant 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    The tag is misleading and its wrong. I think so. Caden 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Errant, although I don't know what the statistics are on which admins favor using the template and which don't, I suspect you're right that those who do are in a minority. The ultimate issue is whether we want to document "temporary" sock puppetry. The template serves that purpose. I suppose the only way to support that kind of documentation is to differentiate a sock puppetry block from other blocks because we don't document other blocks in that way. The part of your objection that has to do with the wording could be resolved by creating another template and using a different tense, but I imagine you would still object to using it. Me, I have mixed feelings on the issue. I used to believe in its use, but I've reconsidered my position based on a conversation with another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The tag says he's currently blocked for socking, however, he's not currently blocked. He was blocked for two weeks, but that block's already expired. I'd say that particular tag is punitive and should be removed. If you really have the need to tag him as someone that's used sock puppets, aren't there tags that state that without stating that he's still blocked ??  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    WP:REMOVED says "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." (emphasis mine). The sock block is no longer an active sanction. Logically, forcing an editor to maintain a "free pass to revert me" sock tag on their page makes the sanction effectively indefinite, which is obviously not the intent. I've removed the tag. NE Ent 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    What happened to AGF? Just because a user has previously socked does not mean they will in the future. Let everyone move on - the tag should not be re-added. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Agree. Users in good standing have a reasonable measure of control over their user and talk pages, and cannot and should not be forced to live with content they don't want there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    I also agree. Once an editor is unblocked, they are deemed no longer to be a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and reminding other editors that they once were is of no use. If they disrupt again (and I'm not implying in any way they would), it's not hard for somebody to pull out the relevant diffs in a future ANI thread. Ritchie333 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Plus, just like with blanked warnings, it can be found in the page history. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • C'mon guys, what happened to WP:AGF?Realised I used almost the exact same phrase as GiantSnowman I doubt Fareed30 has posted at ANI before and thus is probably unfamiliar with the process; while the orange notice does help new users identify and comply with the conditions of filing a request/complaint here, some users do miss it. YuMaNuMa 13:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I thank you all for paying attention, and I believe you've made an appropriate decision. About me failing to notify Toddst1, I was just afraid that he was going to block me. He has done that after I fixed an article. --Fareed30 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Please add the template as I suggested above (or {{User alternative account master}} if you prefer) to prevent any further SPI issues for you as long as you are a good faith editor. For future reference, always notify anyone involved with any AN discussion (including all sub-branches like AN/I here). There is very little chance of a block sticking for an AN report (and actually, blocking someone for filing an AN could result in desysoping if the community didn't agree it was appropriate). Technical 13 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a clear consensus against the tag. I have no problem with that, but it's in my nature to quibble, so ... First, the tag does not say he is currently blocked; the tense is ambiguous. Second, the BLANKING policy can be interpreted the way NE Ent does, but it can also be interpreted to mean sock notices, current or not. Although wordy, one way to fix that would be to make the second clause read "confirmed sockpuppetry related notices regarding a currently active block". In my view, to change the wording would require a greater discussion than took place here. I might add that some admins don't tag the master even during the period the master is blocked. They only tag if the master is indefinitely blocked. Of course, that begs the question why the template has wording for this type of situation. The template also has a version for a temporary block after a CU, which uses a different tense. It's all kind of messy, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm as rabid of an anti-sock person as they come, and I can't endorse this usage. The socking is in the block log, so any reoccurrence will take the previous socking into account. It's intended to mark a blocked or suspected account, not as a permanent marker after the block as expired.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd close this discussion except based on Todd's contribution history, he may not even be aware of the topic, and I don't want to close it before he's had a chance to respond. In the meantime, I propose we name Kevin as "Most Rabid Anti-Sock Editor".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Using Inappropriate Language

    BOOMERANG Obitauri (talk · contribs) indeffed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) for persistent edit warring. No further action required here.

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


    User Floquenbeam is using inappropriate words and agressive tone in talk of 2nd Battle of Kharkov article. Please take actions or it may make me to do same to him. Thank you --Obitauri (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Is it generally ok to self-indentify as a National-Socialist at Misplaced Pages ? Or are you all just feeding the troll ? 80.132.70.118 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Comment. Note that I have just blocked Obitauri for an indefinite duration of time for their role in an unrelated incident.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    I have no opinion whatsoever on the content of this dispute, as I'm not interested in researching it. But there should never be any sanctions ever placed on a Wikipedian simply for using the F-word. I have used foul language on talk pages before, but only when I was being strongly provoked by extremely stubborn users who didn't give a darn about Misplaced Pages policies or reliable sources. If Obitauri actually believes Floquenbeam is engaged in disruptive behaviour rather than just getting frustrated and dropping an F-bomb once, then they should change the title of this thread and present some reasonable evidence. But no sanctions should ever be placed on a user simply for using foul language. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    I had an edit conflict with the closer. No reason my opinion should be stricken just because I was a few seconds late in clicking the "Save page" button. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

    Naming and shaming editors on the talk page

    User User:Januarythe18th made a thread on the talk page of Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University with a list of all accounts that ever edited the page which he believes belong to the religious movement. Together with the list he places a series of accusations directed to all of them, implying his right to revert all edits made by any of the accounts. Is that a normal behavior in Misplaced Pages? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    (After lots of edit conflicts...) Yes, it's quite normal to name single purpose accounts as most of these seem to be. By the way, have you discussed this with the user and notified them on their talk page of this discussion? Kim Dent-Brown 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for responding, Kim. Does that mean the accounts listed there lose their right to edit the article? I didn't know about the policy of single-purpose-accounts nor that I was one of them, as I edited articles of different subjects/areas in my first few weeks on wikipedia. My account has also been listed there. Yes I did notify him and the subject was discussed on the talk page. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    The users listed there absolutely do NOT lose any rights, nor can they be reverted without good cause. And what's more the listing is only one person's opinion; Jan18th may be wrong about some of them but I have to say at a cursory glance many of them do indeed only seem to be focussing on one narrow set of articles (and with one limited point of view. With an article like the one being discussed, I'm afraid it's often the case that very partisan editors (sometimes recruited by advocates of the subject) come along to push a particular agenda. It's usually pretty obvious who they are and it can be useful to identify them in this way. But if your own edits and talk page comments are balanced and constructive, just being on one person's list is no bar to you editing. Kim Dent-Brown 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying that, Kim. I completely agree with what you said, articles of religious movements naturally attract people who want to portray their religion as the one and only truth, completely perfect, etc. which of course is not near an encyclopedic point of view. But don't you agree, that religious articles also attract the other extreme side - haters of that religion, people devoted to portray the religion as negatively as possible out of religious hate? By watching Januarythe18th behavior on the talk page, I do feel that is the case about him. I think some of the users there who are connected to the religion and which have been placed in that list, are merely people willing to turn the article into a neutral, encyclopedic one, rather then its present version, which all users on the talk page, except Januarythe18th, agree by consensus, is very negatively biased. I feel Januarythe18th is probably an ex-member of Brahma Kumaris and is very dedicated to portraying a very specific and extreme version of it according to his POV.
    Sorry, I don't want to bother you with those conjectures. In practice, what all of that means is: I've witnessed some opinions on the articles agreed by 5 editors, including non-members of the religion, except January18, which he insistently reverted and it seems all users are scared from participating on that page. I myself feel scared to even touch anything on that page by seeing how Januarythe18th treats all other editors. He says the article is very accurate and needs no changes. He is the only editor who thinks like that, all other editors think the article is nothing near encyclopedic, and reads like an anti-religious propaganda. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    User:Legobot is (was) malfunctioning

    It appears that for a short period of time this morning, User:Legobot was editing logged out. User:Crazycomputers has blocked the IP, so there may be no further action needed. There is a corresponding gap in the bot's contributions as well. I'm notifying here in case anyone has additional insight into the issue. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    Category: