Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armbrust (talk | contribs) at 03:39, 2 January 2014 (→Proposal: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

Edits by 91.60.163.227

Germany–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been repeatedly edited by User:91.60.163.227 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to introduce controversial and unsourced information. (See diffs , ,)

The user repeatedly introduces information without citations and gets upset on the article talk page (see here and here) when it is removed because of WP:RS, WP:V, etc.

User:Josh3580 and I (User:Mononomic) have been reverting some of the damage and are trying to explain it to the IP via the article talk page. We are walking the narrow line of WP:3RR and would like some feedback or action about this. —Mono·nomic 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• What Mono·nomic said. On the first diff that was listed, the user added the {{cn}} template to facts which were clearly covered by the cited source. The user stated that the cited article was biased, and therefore not valid. He is not receptive at all to discussion, nor referral to policies. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just an upate... 3 days after the incident was reported to WP:AN/I, and with no further edits or participation in discussion seen from 91.60.163.227, I have reverted the article to its previous, properly sourced version. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and further investigation. I suspect that the editors 91.60.163.227 and 91.60.169.118 (who has been editing the Talk page of the article in question) to be socks of a previously disciplined editor, as both new accounts immediately began submitting edits with formatted references (something no truly new editor would have experience with). Given the obsession of both IPs with purported "jewish crimes" and Israel-bashing, I rather doubt any rational discussion will be forthcoming. (IP traces source Oyten and Delmenhorst, two suburbs of Bremen metro area in Germany. Home & work computers?)

Side-note: someone should take a look at Wiedergutmachung, which the 91.60.163.227 IP has been active in, as I would guess revisionist propaganda in being worked in. --Froglich (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Destructive editing

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

A bot archived the following, so in case it was done by mistake, I'm reposting this. Please let me know if I've done anything inappropriately.

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion ; addition of unsourced edits . On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. . Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. . He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page and on AngusWOOF's . There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - FYI: Threads are moved to the archives after 36 hours of inactivity. With the report you've presented, I'm kinda' surprised (and kinda' not) that an admin has not responded to this yet. I'll post-date my comment to prevent archiving for you. - WOLFchild 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threads are indeed archived when there's no actions required, often because other venues have not be tried yet. As is the case here. Odd that the OP would jump to the "blocks are the only thing to stop him" when we have some very minor "offenses" (ie, we don't block for using an article talkpage as a forum). We do however, have WP:DR ES&L 11:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" link doesn't seem to show what you intended to show. Do you have a correct link? – Quadell 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at all of User:Dcelano contribuations and on User:Figureskatingfan and User:AngusWOOF Talk Page I Beleave that Dcelano has Ben Anoying Them for a long time and They have had Enough Jena (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of Dcelano's contributions. I have read the other diffs provided, but the claim "Removal of content without explanation or discussion" is an important one, and I think the diff provided has a typo in it. I'm just trying to see if anyone can show that particular behavior in a working diff. – Quadell 15:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• deleted comment and warning on talk:the wiggles page
• deleting off my page
• deleted link on article

-AngusWOOF (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As an outside admin, when I look over the diffs and user contributions, a few things are apparent to me.

1. Dcelano is really into the Wiggles, and he seems to honestly want to contribute to Wiggles-related articles. However he does not cite his sources (nor does he use edit summaries effectively), and he doesn't seem to be able to distinguish reliable information from unreliable information. His edits are usually reverted.
2. He seems to use talkpages as if they were a fansite message board. His comments are not abusive or disruptive, but they are rarely useful or welcome.
3. In the view of the most prolific content contributors to these generally high-quality articles, Dcelano does not improve the articles or contribute meaningfully on talk pages, but simply creates more work for other editors who have to undo his changes. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this summary of your views, AngusWOOF and Christine.)
4. Since The Wiggles is a Featured article, this problem is most pronounced there. Several editors work hard to maintain the quality of that article (along with related articles), and they resent having to revert one user's changes over and over again.
5. Over the last month he's made about 5 edits a day, which is hardly overwhelming, but it is a consistent issue. The same sort of behavior has been ongoing for at least a year, and he doesn't seemed to have improved the quality of his contributions in that time. It is very unlikely he will become a valued contributor to Wiggles-related articles in the future.

Since he hasn't figured out how to effectively improve these articles over the last year, and since we run the risk of driving away the sort of editors who do meaningfully improve these articles, I'd be inclined to support a topic ban. What do others think? – Quadell 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good assessment from what I can see, Quadell. What I'm seeing is a lot of time-sink for the involved editors; they constantly need to check his every edit and very little of it stays within the articles/talk pages. I think a topic ban of some kind or some other restriction is not a bad idea. only (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (and possible block - this user should commit to contributing meaningfully, and using talk pages, edit summaries and sources properly. We have a regular contributor here, let's see if we can turn him into an effective one) - WOLFchild 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I agree that a topic ban would be the best option, for the reasons Quadell states above. It's true that Dcelano's behavior isn't overwhelming, but it is, as Q says, long-standing and annoying. The Wiggles can be heavily vandalized, so it's just one more thing to have to deal with to ensure its continuing quality. I don't have much faith that his behavior will change, though, since he has been known to do the same kinds of things on other Wiggles sites, even with bans and repeated requests to change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

yes a Topic Ban and Maby a Block Jena (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like everyone finds this solution appropriate. How do we implement a topic ban? – Quadell 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Topic Bans normally handled by someone giving him/her a formal notification of the matter and someone watches his/her edits? MM (Report findings) 23:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I've never initiated or enforced one before. – Quadell 13:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ummm I thought an Admin would know what they are doing? Maby we should just ask somoneelse to block him? Jena (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just interpreting the evidence and gathering consensus. Like I said, I haven't been involved in a topic ban before, and I'm not willing to use my admin tools unless I can be reasonably sure I'm doing so according to policy. Getting other admins involved is a great idea, which is why we're here. – Quadell 14:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Then can an admin act on this, please? This has drug out for a long time, and Dcelano continues his inappropriate editing. For example, his latest, just this morning (unsourced addition): I could cite other recent instances of his continuing behavior, but I think I've made my point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafkasmurat

Kafkasmurat (talk · contribs) has been leaving ridiculous and offensive comments on talk pages on Armenia-related articles, namely

• Armenian Highlands - "Armenians stop manipluating Misplaced Pages"
• Armenian Genocide - "Just because of politics and capitalist opressers, people are now divided. There is no differences between Turks or Armenians." "The killings are real but not 1.5 million." " are you accusing us about it. There were no Turkey or Turks.", etc. - I removed it per WP:NOTFORUM
• Soghomon Tehlirian (an Armenian who killed Talaat Pasha, one of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and was found not guilty by the German court) - "When did terrorists become assasins? This man killed people on street. At daylight and never felt guilty. How can you make a hero from a psychopath ? There aren't any mentions of this"

Interestingly enough, this user hasn't been editing since 2008 and made a sudden comeback this January.

His edits back in 2007 include blanking of Armenian Genocide three times and replacing it with

--Երևանցի 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Calm down, talking shouldn't disturb you. I am a historian i read these articles and blanking was a mistake. Also, what is your purpose? You just can't stand freedom of expression?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Kafkasmurat, your feelings of brotherhood are greatly appreciated. However, Misplaced Pages is not the best place to express those. Also, this is not the place for comments such as "Armenians stop manipluating Misplaced Pages". Seriously, that kind of commentary is blockable, and I say this as a total non-Armenian. As far as I know, of course. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all admins reading this that editing in the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions described at WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks BMK. More paperwork. Kafka has been warned and logged. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The arbitration committee clearly stated "Misplaced Pages is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.". This is in addition to the notices on those articles advising that the talkpages are "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." I can't see that there is any justification for this edit, for instance. "Freedom of expression" does not necessarily exist on Misplaced Pages (see Misplaced Pages:NOTFREESPEECH). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

His comments are pretty self-explanatory. He just opened a section on me claiming "Any matter offenses to Turks ( even terrorism) gets support by the user" simply because I've edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict article. I suggest admins take some actions. Users like him are not here to build an encyclopedia. --Երևանցի 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• User is now warned. I don't see a reason to pile it on right now; future disruption can be dealt with by blocking, for instance. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. Thank you for issuing a warning. --Երևանցի 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you working so hard on it. I only wrote something at talk pages. If i'm wrong, you should tell it to me. Why is this rivalry? Nobody told me anything about my ideas. You just reverted the talking. I'm not your enemy. I'm against all blockades. You block someone and he'll come with another name. Instead of blocking, you can be advisory.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kafkasmurat: And I don't understand why you are editing English Misplaced Pages articles when your command of the language doesn't seem quite up to it. I'd suggest you'd be more helpful editing the Misplaced Pages of your native language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's just talking. I don't talk on articles. You're so intolerant and i'm not sure this is a voluntary encyclopedia. Since you're excluding the newcomers.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "just talking": more than half of your edits (46/82) are to articles. Besides, you're no "newcomer", you've been editing here since 2007.

And, yes, I am quite intolerant of people who edit English Misplaced Pages who do not have sufficient command of the language to do so. I would never think of doing an edit on another language's Misplaced Pages which involved the expression of ideas when I couldn't properly convey because of my own deficiency in that language. That would be a disservice to their efforts to build a quality encyclopedia. It so happens that English Misplaced Pages, because of its dominance and the world-wide influence of the language, is a magnet for people to come here and fight their ethnic and nationalistic quarrels. It's a total pain in the patoot and causes no end of troubles, clogging up our noticeboards and taking up the time of our Arbitration Committee. That's bad enough, but when a significant portion of those POV warriors edit with poor English-language skills, it makes things even worse.

So, either learn to communicate better in English or stop editing articles here in a way that requires other editors to fix your languager-related errors, or, preferably, edit the Misplaced Pages(s) in the language(s) you have better competency in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Signed up at 2007, but didn't have time contribute. It seems you're looking for trouble. I don't mean to harm anyone. Why don't you chill? It's a bad habit. And language matter: I use approriate languge while editing. There is no problem in articles. People can make mistakes at talk pages. You don't need to give grammar lecture for this.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have looked at some of your article edits, a random sample, and there are language problems with them that have to be corrected by other editors. That's not acceptable, so get better at writing in English or stop doing article edits.

As for my "looking for trouble", it's your behavior which is the subject of this report, including your early POV-vandalism edits, when you blanked entire articles you disagreed with, and not excepting the retaliatory report you filed below, which Drmies rightfully closed as being WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, why do you write falsehoods that are so easily disproven? "Signed up at 2007, but didn't have time contribute," you wrote. Well, that's bullshit. You made 26 edits in 2007, which is 31% of your current total, and 17 of those were edits to articles, which is 37% of your article edits. So were were quite active in 2007, by your standards, and it remains true that you're not a "newbie" I'm driving away by pointing out the problems with your editing. You are, clearly, a POV-warrior deficient in English who shouldn't be editing here, and certainly shouldn't be editing in the manner you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I no longer object to an indef block for Kafkasmurat. I just warned them for soapboxing and I made this revert. In addition, I'm wondering about their connection to 212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an address I just blocked for the same kind of anti-Armenian attitude--that is, the attitude that Armenians are holding out and Misplaced Pages editors are enabling it. I see that Kafkasmurat just posted on my talk page again; I can't wait to see what the news is now. At any rate, since I warned them and made a revert of their edits, I don't think I should be pulling the trigger on a block of any length right now, though I see no reason why I shouldn't if this continues. I hope this thread hasn't gone cold. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Template:Uninvolvededitor When in doubt, WP:CHECKUSER. Erpert 09:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately (and I really mean that; it is, I think, a very unfortunate and damaging policy choice) CheckUsers will not connect an account with an IP, which, of course, allows editors with accounts to sock fairly freely by hiding behind IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Really? The second sentence on WP:CHECKUSER says the opposite. Or am I reading something incorrectly? Erpert 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not very clearly written. As I understand it, CheckUsers do access IP data, and will use that to connect two or more named accounts, but what they will not do (at least anymore - I swear I remember them doing it when I first became aware of CheckUsers and sockpuppetry investigations 6 or 7 years ago) is publicly connect a named account to an IP address, because (I guess) by doing so they would provide location information for that named account, which would be WP:OUTING and violate WMF privacy rules. If I am correct about this, it means that there's no point in listing suspected IP socks with a single named account when filing an SPI, unless you expect a block on behaviorial grounds alone, because even if the CheckUser finds a connection between between the named account and a suspected IP sock, they won't block the IP sock, since that would be a de facto public admission of a connection.

          If I'm wrong about this, I hope that a CheckUser, or someone who has been a CheckUser in the past, will correct me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

          • Personally, I feel that vandals and vandalizing socks give up their privacy rights by abusing the site's terms of service, and that we shouldn't bend over backwards to preserve their privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
          • BMK, you are correct: CU does not link to IPs (at least not for us). As far as I know. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hi fellows. Firstly i'm not vandal. I don't harm any article. I don't edit without reference. Vandalism means being "only harmful" i guess. Secondly, i don't intend to upset anyone. That's a harsh conversation you're making. I just said something at "talk page". Is this enough to make someone "vandal"?? Finally, i have references, a base for talk pages i think; I have internet information, I can use proxies or different usernames but it's not my philosophy; "Anything you do, comes back, nothing is out of reason" i don't hide. Also, I contribute to other Wiki projects, i like giving away, never involved in such this judgement.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No one has said, or implied, that you are a vandal - the discussion simply drifted into another area when it was questioned whether your account was related to a blocked IP account. No, the issues concerning you here are two: primarily that your talk page comments are seen as "ridiculous and offensive", which, given their extremely pointed POV nature doesn't seem like an unreasonable assessment; and, secondarily, that you should not contribute to English Misplaced Pages articles given your level of English competency, as amply demonstrated by your comment above this one. Those are separate complaints, please don't conflate them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This, for instance, is not sufficiently correctly-written to be acceptable on English Misplaced Pages:

      11th century book Divânu Lügati't-Türk mentions archetypes of Mehtaran, Turkish military band tradition. It was an essential part of the military. Formed by soldiers. Ottomans obtained this tradition from Seljuks. 17th century traveler Evliya Çelebi noted that the Ottoman Empire had 40 guilds of musicians in 1670's.

      I understand that your command of English is more than sufficient for colloquial use, but your addition of material such as this to an encyclopedia is problematic, as it makes us looks foolish and requires other editors to fix your words. Please do not contribute to Misplaced Pages articles until your command of English is sufficient to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Threats at Ashley Spurlin

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

Ashley Spurlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for deletion at this time but there are some troubling edit summaries from two or three IPs in the history that should probably be revdel'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 22:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Bacon/Kevin Costner/Hollow Man (etc.) vandalism

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

Various IPs (or one user across multiple IPs) has been persistently vandalizing several groups of articles:

• Bicentennial Man (film), List of Columbia Pictures films, List of Touchstone Pictures films, List of Universal Pictures films: changing Bicentennial Man's studio
• Kevin Bacon filmography, Kevin Costner filmography, and Hollow Man: changing Bacon's Hollow Man credit to Costner
• The Nutty Professor (1996 film) and Nutty Professor II: The Klumps: changing "Universal Pictures" to "Columbia Pictures"
• King-Size_Homer: changing "Fox" to "CBS" and "20th Century Fox" to "Columbia TriStar"

The IPs:

• 50.171.232.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.30.197.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 205.215.222.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (currently blocked already)
• 205.215.222.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Trivialist (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice... 1, 2, and 4 are now blocked for 1 year. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If they come back please re-notify and we will partial protect the lot of the articles they're screwing with. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

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

I'd appreciate it if someone would come along and check Talk:Washington Court House, Ohio and the history of its article, together with the non-mainspace contributions of the people recently involved therein. Several days ago, one of the participants in the recent events asked me to intervene, along with asking another admin, who (perhaps more wisely than I) hasn't intervened. As I see it, we've got several people (apparently WP:MEAT, but I'm not yet thoroughly convinced) attempting to add one online publication to the article on this city, all the while demonising ThomasSchroeder, the only other participant who seems to be participating in good faith. This isn't new, as it's been going on at least since October; since that and a few related edits have been partly oversighted, I'm going to ask an oversighter's assistance. I've gotten the impression from some comments (and from one of the usernames, "Leavewikifactsalone") that the yes-let's-add people are working together with the online publication, since the publication tends to come up with its own pages (example) on points of this issue's arguments within hours of the arguments being made on-wiki. I've just fully protected the article on WP:SOCK and WP:SPAM grounds, and I'd especially appreciate it if someone would either confirm that this is the right thing, or revoke the protection on you-went-too-far grounds, or block some of the participants on you-didn't-go-far-enough grounds. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've looked at the page and the pages requested and I am getting the same kind of feeling that I did when being confronted with members of a specific fandom who were trying to establish a walled gardeden of articles. I could see the EEML canvasing/off-wiki-coordination remedies, but that's a bit of a stretch. Perhaps a EditNotice letting all editors know that the page is being watched for attempts to subvert on wiki consensus might do the trick... Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's about right. That doesn't look like a reliable news source at all; practically all the stories are posted by one person and it doesn't look very neutral at all to me. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Leavewikifactsalone (talk · contribs) with a {{usernamehardblock}}. Might as well have called him/herself getthefuckoffmyarticle (talk · contribs). There are a ton of ATT IP addresses in Columbus OH that seem to be the same individual adding the same info. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I left an opinion, Nyttend. It's opposite of yours, but I took a different approach to my analysis than you did.--v/r - TP 15:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and the block. I wanted to block the account several days ago (without even checking the comments), purely because of the username, but I thought I might as well engage on WP:AGF grounds. Your opinion isn't exactly opposite of mine; my position was that it's being treated as media by other media sources, so we might as well include it as local media — after all, counting it as local media doesn't mean we count it as WP:RS. Final question: is the protection too much, too little, or just right? Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi would probably work just fine unless there is a sock farm.--v/r - TP 15:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Downgraded per your suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's just one article, can't that particular URL be added to the Misplaced Pages external link blacklist? Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to blacklist it. It's not that it can't be used ever, it's that it can only be used in an appropriate context. As a WP:SPS, it shouldn't ever be used to write in Misplaced Pages voice, for example. And it certainly shouldn't be used to cite itself as a municipal city council servicing media.--v/r - TP 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Juzumaru

Juzumaru (talk · contribs) has some kind of anti-Korean 21st century political agenda (no need for diffs -- every single edit he has made this month is consistent), and has been misrepresenting sources and messing up articles on subjects like classical Japanese poetry based on this agenda. I have tried contacting him on his talk page, and asked him to use article talk pages, but he has ignored me and kept reverting me, and tried to change the definition of the word toraijin. He also cryptically requested (in Japanese, which he speaks more intelligibly than English) that I contact him on his talk page, despite his failure to acknowledge previous attempts. Ć I'm on a smart phone, so only one diff at a time.

182.249.240.10 (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE He has apparently finally replied to me on his talk page, asking me (in Japanese) for quotations from the sources I already cited. This is, as far as I know, not a requirement on Misplaced Pages, and is difficult as hell to do on a phone (my only Internet source at the moment). I also a quote would stop him, given how he has otherwise dismissed all the sources, and he keeps misrepresenting the meaning of a certain word, apparently assuming he's the only one on English Misplaced Pages who speaks Japanese, imagine what he could do with an entire block of text. 182.249.240.9 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've not looked at it all but Toraijin just means an immigrant to Japan, not specifically Korean. It can be used for all people who came to settle in Japan from overseas. Canterbury Tail talk 16:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, but the sources all specifically say Baekje. Juzumaru is dismissing all but one of my sources, and refusing to actually read that one source, instead judging it by its title. His edit summary in English also implies he is claiming the word specifically means someone NOT from Korea, which is wrong. 182.249.240.33 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Note it appears that there is now a massive edit war going on over the Japanese invasion of Korea with mass changes and it looks like not a small amount of sockpuppetry. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that. I edit classical Japanese literature articles on the Kojiki and Manyoshu related topics. In fact, when it come to modern politics, I'm probably closer to "Juzumaru's side". 182.249.240.33 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The definition of the ja word 渡来/torai (人/jin means person) is here. What's the problem? The next sentence on the Yamanoue no Okura article specifically says He is believed to have been one of the refugees from the Korean kingdom of Baekje (called Kudara in Japanese) who fled the Korean peninsula for Baekje's close ally Japan after their kingdom was invaded by Tang China. Oda Mari (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. But think about it: why does Juzumaru want to go out of his way to remove the word "Korean" from the opening sentence? And why does he keep insisting that the word toraijin doesn't specifically mean Korean (something I never claimed)? The most obvious answer seems to be that he wants to remove reference to Korea, but his poor English skill led him to miss the second sentence's reference to Kudara. This is consistent with the far-right, fringe POV that has apparently informed every other edit he has made on English Misplaced Pages. I am also increasingly troubled by the edit war CT above mentions. Can we get a mass CU on the SPAs in that dispute? (If I'm gonna talk about sockpuppetry, I should probably disclose that I have an account, but when I try to edit from it on my phone I keep getting logged out and losing my edits.) 182.249.240.15 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason for this is written in genealogy dictionary of Japan.(Shinsen Shōjiroku) Mainstream of the Traijin was the Chinese who lived in the Korean Peninsula. (foreign: 326 families; of those, 163 were from China, 104 from Baekje, 41 from Goguryeo, 9 from Silla, and 9 from Gaya.) I do not deny the possibility that Okura's ancestors came from the Korean Peninsula. However, reference cited is not certain his ethnicity. Therefore, scholars did not write "Okura is a Korean." --Juzumaru (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

They wrote this about the Yamanoue-Okura. If someone refute this opinion, he is far-right? Yamanoue no Okura was a famous poet in eighth-century Japan, who immigrated from Korean Baekje. Influenced by the Madhyamika School of Buddhism growing out of his Former Baekje cultural heritage, he addressed social concerns through his poem, unlike other Japanese poets of the time, who spoke for the ethos of land, love, death and devine monarchy. He later became a tutor to the crown prince and Governor of a province in Japan. The reputation of Yamanoue no Okura has sharply risen in the twentieth century, he became, in the general consensus of sub-sequent centuries of Japanese literary scholarship, one of the most memorable, most influential, and today most often cited poets of the Old Japanese period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources I cited, please. All of them state that he came (or possibly came) from the Korean state of Baekje. You haven't cited a single source that says otherwise. You clearly are not an expert in this area, so why the hell should the rest of us have to take your word on this? Anyway, you don't know "my POV" so stop assuming bad faith by claiming my edits are rooted in some kind of pro-Korean, anti-Japanese POV (nothing could be further from the truth). 182.249.240.25 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, this IP user(182.249.240.xxx) is clueless in the Japan classic literature. And, "he came (or possibly came) from the Korean state of Baekje" is not written in the source. (Baekje is ruined in the 600 when Okura was born. ）182.249.240.xxx, You'll read WP:WEIGHT. Your claim is not a common sense. I quote an article of Yamaue-no-Okura from a Japanese well-known encyclopedia.

• "Nihon Rekishi Jinbutsu Jiten" published by The Asahi Shinbun 奈良時代の歌人。『万葉集』に,推定作を含む長歌11首,短歌60首余,旋頭歌1首,漢詩文3首を残す。また『類聚歌林』を編んだが,現存しない。大宝1(701)年遣唐少録に任ぜられる際に,「无位山於億良」と『続日本紀』にみえる...
• Heibonsha World Encyclopedia万葉歌人。701年(大宝1)遣唐少録，714年(和銅7)従五位下，716年(霊亀2)伯耆守，721年(養老5)東宮(のちの聖武天皇)の侍講となり，726年(神亀3)ころ筑前守赴任，732年(天平4)帰京して翌年卒したらしい。
• "Dainihon Jinmei Jiten" (Dictionary of Japanese Biography) published by The Kodansha斉明天皇6年生まれ。大宝(たいほう)2年遣唐(けんとう)少録として唐(中国)にわたる。帰国後伯耆守(ほうきのかみ),東宮侍講をへて筑前守(ちくぜんのかみ)となり,大宰府で大伴旅人(おおともの-たびと)らとまじわった。
• Daijisen published by The Shogakukan［660～733ころ］奈良前期の官人・歌人。大宝2年（702）渡唐し、帰国後、伯耆守(ほうきのかみ)・東宮侍講・筑前守を歴任。思想性・社会性をもつ歌を詠んだ。
• Daijirin（660～733頃） 奈良前期の官人・歌人。遣唐少録として渡唐。帰国後伯耆守・東宮侍講・筑前守を歴任。筑前守時代に大伴旅人と親交。漢文学の学殖深く，その影響下に人生的・社会的題材の歌を詠んだ。万葉集に多くの歌を残す。家集「類聚歌林」は伝わらない。

There is no famous encyclopedia of Japan written, "Okura is Korean". --Juzumaru (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone please WP:BLOCK or WP:TBAN Juzumaru per WP:NOTHERE. 182.249.240.31 (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

After that bizarre final attack on me, the user apparently has decided to confine himself to ja.wiki. I have contacted him on his talk page there, and hopefully we have worked out our differences. I wanted him to stay off JLit articles in areas he clearly doesn't understand, and if he's staying off English Misplaced Pages altogether then I guesd that's solved. This thread can (probably) be closed now. 182.249.240.39 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've prepared the Talkpage to the Japanese version of Misplaced Pages for this anonymous user. And, he would be happy. --Juzumaru (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone should leave a message on Juzumaru's talk page advising them to edit the Japanese Misplaced Pages, because it's evident that they speak Japanese with more fluency than they do English. Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Ross HillTalk to me! 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Request: An administrator needs to close this thread as a content dispute. No admin action is needed. Ross HillTalk to me! 03:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. I "won" the specific content dispute before posting here. The problem is that every single one of the user's edits demonstrate a clear political agenda incompatible with constructing a neutral encyclopedia. Hence my contention that he should be TBANned from, say, Korea-related topics. I'd say if he was banned from promoting an anti-Korean agenda he would stop editing Misplaced Pages entirely. 182.249.240.4 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 No comment w/r/t the above dispute, but its discouraged to frame content disputes in terms of winning/losing, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. LFaraone 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Quotes added. I'm not the one with the BATTLEGROUND mentality, anyway... 182.249.240.39 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator

Can I get opinions on Antidiskriminator's conduct at the talkpage of the recently created Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo article? I had opened an informal move suggestion section only to hear him tell me that I must file a formal WP:RM after a lengthy discussion and a third opinion was voiced agreeing on the suggestion. I could have been bold and moved it from the start as one can't speak of a formal RM discussion for the initial poorly worded title either, but I figured the right and proper thing to do was to hear his opinion and that of other interested editors on the matter first. I voiced my arguments and offered a compromise title to which a third user had stated it was a improvement over the one that Antidiskriminator preferred. By that time Antidiskriminator effectively suggested we pretend the informal move discussion did not occur and have us simply reiterate our prior arguments in a formal one. I pointed out that he had only done so only when a resemblance of consensus had come about and that it was simple stonewalling on his part. I specifically pointed out that WP:RM states that "it is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." I and other editors have had previous frustrations with his conduct in the past and as result I have limited patience given I know where the discussions may carry. My prior significant interaction with him was being involved in discussions that carried months on end thanks to his extraordinary effort to force his POV while I and a co-editor were attempting to promote a article to featured status. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The article itself seems to have very carefully cherrypicked content, but I suppose we have to accept that as normal in the Balkans.

Back on topic, reliable sources tend to prefer language like "demonstrations" and "rioting" so it's rather frustrating that this article has been transformed into a "pogrom"; a pogrom is a massacre, and in reality, the events were not a massacre. Of course with the article's creator stonewalling, and an ally on hand who provides Antidiskriminator with unwavering support in each RM, it's unlikely that any requested move towards a more neutral name would succeed. bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, PRODUCER, the informal move discussion is really you and 1 other editor. An RM doesn't always attract more attention than that, but it's tough to argue that one isn't required here when there are only 3 participants. Some advertising on the RM by making a formal RM would actually help. Although now with Bobrayner commenting here, my comments might already be out of date.--v/r - TP 02:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved on this article, and I have little intention of getting involved, because I'm tired of spending hours trying to bring other Balkan history articles in line with sources only to see the edits automatically reverted by the same old editors. I wish PRODUCER the best of luck. bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User Bobrainer is a usual participant in Serb-related subjects who´s open purpose is to fight Serb nationalist fantasy, so it is not a surprise his comment here which involves a historical article where Serbs were victims. It is already usual to see the same group of editors diminishing events that happend to Serbs, but in a similar reverse event pushing for a "Massacre" title. Regarding the issue here, the RM would have been appropriate just as TParis said. FkpCascais (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I have stalkers, it goes with the territory and it was inevitable that somebody would turn up sooner or later and misrepresent one of my edits. I stand by that diff (I stand by what I actually said; it's true; I don't stand by what you just said here because that's not true), and if you want to raise the issue here, I can provide a dozen examples. Several of the recent ones involve you proxying for sanctioned editors, or just directly contradicting what sources say. However, I'd rather we stuck to the topic in this particular thread: Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo. What do you think, FkpCascais?

Good folk of AN/I, I apologise; discussions in this area tend to get out of hand. bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I already said, a proper RM would seem correct, as there were only a few participants in that discussion, and a RM would certainly bring more partcipants thus making it possible for a consensus to be reached. (P.S.: I didn´t stalked you, by chance I noteced this thread even before anyone commented it, but once I saw you kind of winning clearly taking sides in this specific dispute, I needed to say that you are far from uninvolved in these matters as you presented yourself to be. Just that.) FkpCascais (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note - tagging move discussions with WP:RM will trigger bots to advertize the discussion on the Article alerts pages of all tagged WikiProjects. So, assuming all the relevant WPs are tagged, this would bring attention to the issue from members of the community much better than AN/I. It's probably annoying to have to say "please read ] above", but it's not actually useless. --Joy (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Joy, we are both aware of how requested moves typically go down here. Editors belonging to a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc" usually "stumble" (Fkp's little "notice by chance" above is a case in point) into the discussion and loyally vote their title regardless of what evidence or arguments are at hand. Antidiskriminator's insistence that there must be a formal RM came only after some headway was made. His "contesting" through an article move revert is supported by no one but himself though he is quick to claim my move is consensus deficient. Amusing really. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to claim a WP:TAGTEAM or WP:ALLSOCKS (although a better term would be all meat in this case) doesn't exactly encourage helpful discussion from Antidiskriminator or anyone else. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. PRODUCER, I think the best approach right now is a full RM. Not because Antidiskriminator asked for one, but because there was really only 3 editors involved and a wider consensus would be helpful.--v/r - TP 17:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my observation given my time here, but I'll file the RM at your insistence. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what you're saying but the process can't really be optimized further. At the end of the day we depend on RM closing admins not to be clueless and ignore votes in favor of arguments. --Joy (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Lilactimeross.jpg

This image was accidentally reduced to Fair use sizes, but is, in fact, PD-Text (the rationale everyone forgets about). Can someone please restore the full size?

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden 09:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This is still copyrighted. Title pages are also "other protected type in sense of the local copyright law," according to commons:Template:PD-text. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, title pages may be eligible for British copyright. George Ho (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

1. No, that is completely wrong. None of the copyrightable music appears in the image. Commons' statements are not relevant: Commons works under international law, only American copyright law matters HERE. Please review Misplaced Pages:Public_domain#Non-creative_works.
2. Only American copyright applies on English Misplaced Pages. That may well be a reason not to move it to commons, but has no relevance to here. Adam Cuerden 09:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your "interpretation" on the guideline. It doesn't say that English Misplaced Pages must follow solely on the American law. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyrights#Governing_copyright_law - Hope this helps. - WOLFchild 02:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))

• "Only American copyright applies on English Misplaced Pages" - I can't make this NOPE big enough. Misplaced Pages must respect both American copyright law and the copyright law of the country of origin. This is why there are some (perhaps even "many") cases where something is PD in the country of origin but is copyrighted in the United States and, thus, cannot be freely used here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see {{Do not move to Commons}} and pages that use it, e.g. File:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg. We care about the PD-in-origin-but-not-USA cases because we're a USA-based organisation and could be liable for copyright infringement lawsuits for those cases. Unlike Commons, we don't care about PD-in-USA-but-not-origin cases by longstanding policy, and since we're not a UK-based organisation, we're not liable to copyright infringement lawsuits for those cases. Of course, if you're in the UK you might be liable to an individual lawsuit; that's why we've always been careful to remind non-Americans to follow their own laws, and when they find PD-in-USA-but-not-origin images from their own countries, to ask American editors to upload the images in question in order to avoid problems. Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted discussion

Demetrioscz have deleted a discussion content. With this argument: remove personal comments about the article page. Those are claims of the book's author. Only discussions regarding how to improve the article should be present here. You can cite reliable 3rd party sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Cartwheels_in_a_Sari:_A_Memoir_of_Growing_Up_Cult&action=history --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Demetrioscz is correct in his edit. The comments at the talk page are not related to the improvement of the article, but are someone's rebuttal to the content of the book. Please do not restore the commentary again. Additionally, you should read Misplaced Pages:Free speech. You do not have the right to free speech on the Wikimedia project. only (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Only - of course Richard Reinhardt has freedom of speech on a Wikimedia project. The United States Government cannot come here and remove his comments! However, any Misplaced Pages editor could remove them and there is nothing he can do about it. =) --v/r - TP 17:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure there is! He can file an ANI. :D - WOLFchild 02:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))

James Lindberg

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

This user is repeatedly removing sourced content. This are the most recent exemples: diff, diff. He was already warned numerous times by several editors, and he has been blocked for the exact same reason on same articles. Usually has been easier just to revert him without bothering to make a full complain here, but it has been a bit enough of same old story with this user again and again. Basically, he removed everything regarding the historical periods and all reference to Yugoslavia, pretending as if Macedonia was allways independent, so we are dealing here with tendentious nationalistic editing. FkpCascais (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The same user also re-created article "Macedonian pre-selection for Eurovision Song Contest" that was previously speedy deleted. It was deleted as redundant to Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. But, in this new article, he counts all Eurovision entrants from Yugoslavia from 1961 to 1992 as Macedonian, although they all represented Yugoslavia and none of them was from Macedonia. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so typical. He did a similar thing some time ago with List of Macedonian football champions. When his edits were reverted (not just by me, one can see that article history page) he just made a new article just changing one capital letter in the title. I´ll try to find a link. His edits allwys go about ignoring the Yugoslav period and pretending Macedonia was independent all the time. He also often edits as IP. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on, the guy did it again... can´t beleave no one gives a f*** here... FkpCascais (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, he was indef blocked... finally... This thread can be closed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FkpCascais, you have to learn to be a little patient. I'm not an admin, but I can still tell you that there are literally hundreds of issues that admins have to deal with around here. Anyway, I was going to NAC close this, but considering this comment, I wonder if any admin would consider removing James' talkpage, user page, etc per WP:VIOLENCE. Erpert 03:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Erpert for your input. Yes, he made serious personal threats. Jingby, me and some other users have been dealing with him and his attitude for long time. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Settai3 and copyright infringement

Settai3 was warned about uploading several copyrighted images yesterday. Despite this, the user has continued to upload a number of images, sometimes even replacing fair use images for new copyrighted ones.LM2000 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The uploads are happening over at the Commons, not here. I have put a (second) final warning on their Commons talk page and will post something on their talk page on this wiki as well. I have also posted at the Commons admin notice board. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request at Ante Vranković

NOTE relevant archived thread: Legal threats by User:Ante Vranković -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ante Vranković (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can another administrator please step in and consider the latest unblock request at User talk:Ante Vranković? I think we're getting a little combative there, and it would be good for another administrator to step in and make a decision or add an outside view sooner rather than later. only (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If he is re-blocked, I suggest revoking his talk page access too. Erpert 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A penchant for lawyering, invoking the Foundation, arguing semantics, general combativeness, and all this with only 23 edits. I don't see why this user needs to be unblocked. -- John Reaves 22:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

well, he was unblocked by TParis, so we'll have to keep an eye on him now as he edits. None so far outside the talk page. only (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, take him at his latest offer: "if it will make you feel better, you are free to completely block my account now, so that I won`t be able to put out the obvious facts about the case (this is my official statement/agreement on that)." This editor is up to no good. His threat is still hanging in the background. While we can let him know that the Foundation has no power to prevent him from pursuing legal action outside of Misplaced Pages, we cannot allow anyone to edit who would even dream of doing it. Period. The very thought of doing so must be expunged from their mentality, and that seems to be out of the question with this editor. They totally assume bad faith about everyone who disagrees with them, calling them liars, and they are therefore unfit to be here. So, an indef ban and lock the talk page, and don't follow their suggestion to "unblock my account now or delete it as it never eXisted." No, we keep the account open for the record for all editors to see. We can blank the page, but not delete the history. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• No "other administrator with an outside view" is needed here. If TParis blocked him, then it was probably for a good reason. TP usually knows what he's doing, and doesn't need a back-seat/Monday morning admin stepping in. - WOLFchild 02:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))

• I'm not quite sure you understand the situation here. The user was seeking unblock which TParis eventually granted a few hours after I posted this thread. only (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oops, got that backward. But, hey, if TP unblocked him, I'm sure that was for a good reason too. Now we'll just see what happens... - WOLFchild 03:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Subsequent comments by Ante indicate a need for an indef. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. This is just his talk page. He is a little upset and there is a language barrier issue. Give him a chance to cool down and see what he does. - WOLFchild 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Wolfchild. Blocking is generally not an urgent matter when all that's happening is talk. While I had suggested in the previous thread that consideration be given to not unblocking even in light of a retraction, TParis should be given deference with respect to that decision. Sounding angry or combative is, while a bad sign, not on its own grounds for blocking, especially in light of the recent unblock. Tempers are running high. We should be cool. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of a BLP

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

An IP editor has been repeatedly adding content in violation of the BLP policy to the page of Robert Beerbohm (see page history ). Looks like the editor has already received a few warnings, but refuses to get the point. (Also, I'm not convinced this guy is notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages article, but that's a less urgent problem). TheBlueCanoe 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's actually been more than one IP adding this content, so I have used semi-protection rather than a block. Please post at WP:RFPP if the problem resumes when the protection wears off ( 2 wks ) -- Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for interaction ban or 1RR restriction between Pass a Method and StAnselm

StAnselm (talk · contribs) and Pass a Method (talk · contribs) seem to be locked in edit wars at Lot (biblical person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tree of life (biblical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Garden of Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Other than blocking them both I can't think of any other alternative than some form of interaction ban. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• An interaction ban would probably make things worse. Since they both edit in the same area, that would be equivalent to saying that the first of them to make an edit to an article can't be reverted, or indeed that the other editor couldn't ever edit that article. Some sort of 1RR restriction would probably be better. Or alternatively blocking them both for a while wouldn't be unreasonable - they're both gaming 3RR on all of those articles (I think StAnselm has even broken it on Tree of Life). Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't think I had, but I think that's because I was assuming move reversions didn't count. Anyway, I made two reverts, and one edit seeking a compromise solution. Obviously, I realise that edit-warring is not necessarily breaking 3RR, but I just wanted to clarify this. StAnselm (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Black Kite and also because my own observation is that StAnselm does yeoman's work in Biblical areas while Pass a Method's involvement is generally disruptive and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Protect articles Curiously enough, I find that StAnselm's efforts are POVish and he's prone to edit-warring (as shown above). This calls for protecting the articles from non-admin edits to force them to discuss rather than revert. MilesMoney (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1RR restriction. I prefer a 1 revert-rule restriction between myself and StAnselm, but alternatively would be fine with a interaction ban. It is frustrating when you've spent two to three hours gathering sources and then somebody reverts you with a vague or non-applicable edit summary. It would also be helpful when i'm in the midst of work-in-progress; my edits usually take between an hour or so in between them, but stanselm sometimes judges me by my first incomplete edit. If i was allowed time to include my unfinished draft which included Baha'i scripture and the Book of Mormon, the setence would make sense. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is a preview function that can prevent this, as well as using a sandox. -- John Reaves 00:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - there is more going on between the two of us than just the resurrection of these old edit wars, of course. Pass a Method and I have had a lot of interaction lately. I thought things were improving after this exchange on my talk page, but since then Pass a Method has accused me of Eurocentric editing and then started a thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page, which to all appearances was accusing me of racism. StAnselm (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I had another editor in mind, not you. Pass a Method talk 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hence my "to all appearances". But you talk page post came immediately after this edit on my talk page and after a string of edits to Tree of life (biblical), Garden of Eden, and their respective talk pages. That certainly makes it look suspicious. StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have interacted with dozens of editors over the past two weeks. Pass a Method talk 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1RR interaction restriction per Pass a Method, I've not seen Pass a Method doing POV questionable edits but they certainly may have. I cannot say the same for the other editor, and across a variety of subjects that all seem to lie in contentious areas related to conservatism. That they are both overall improving things is of course debatable, but minimizing the back and forth on articles is probably best. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction ban / Support 1RR restriction - I requested page protection for Garden of Eden and saw some edit warring on a couple of other articles on my watchlist. These two editors approach religious/spiritual topics from completely different points of view. I think an interaction ban would unfairly penalize one party in favor of the other, but a 1RR restriction on articles that they both edit would force discussion sooner and avoid edit wars.- MrX 23:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Support indefinite blocks of both with no TP/email access and indefinite full protection of ALL affected articles: I don't even think a mutual 1RR restriction goes far enough in this case. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

- "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out"...? That's a little over the top. I'm sure 1RR, plus 24hr. block for any over-3RR's will suffice. - WOLFchild 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC) ((Non-administrator comment))

Nukes for Xmas, huh? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why yes.... I MEAN NO... - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support fresh trout for Bigpoliticsfan for dramatizing things further. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose trouting In ictu oculi for failing to understand irony. ;) Iselilja (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not, I searched the ANI archive box to see Bigpoliticsfan's previous appearances at ANI for context, confirmed that it isn't irony below. Rather odd comments for a new editor. Anyway, User:Iselilja the issue is whether repeatedly reposting additions like this should be reverted or not. St Anselm is reverting repeated additions of an editor who refuses to listen or stop - making reversions that you or I or any other responsible WP Religion editor should have been making with St Anselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have the time or inclination to investigate this, but my canned suggestion is as follows: if this is a dispute about the same topic spread across multiple articles, then a RfC should be started on one page and pointers left on the others. If these two are edit warring about different topics, then blocks of both are probably justified, unless there is (going to be) consensus here that one's edits were way outside policies, in which case a single-sided block would be ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone not using his real name (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban - the WikiProject Religion / WikiProject Christianity editor pool has been decimated over the last 5 years to the point where there are barely enough competent editors to keep out the tidal wave of internet fringe. History2007 quitting and John Carter having admin tools removed for (in my view) opposing fringe and then retiring. This inevitably means that the small number of editors capable of keeping the large article stock free of fringe is going to be more prone to 3RRs. I'm referring positively to StAnselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

On closer look User:Dougweller, from what I can see User:Pass a Method has (a) been attempting to add Islamic weight to leads of Bible articles which are generally weighted as Jewish/Christian in English sources. That may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. (b) Pass a Method has been making undiscussed moves of Bible figures from (biblical person) to (Abrahamic person) which again may or may not be justifiable but before radical changes discussion should at WP Judaism, WP Christianity, WP Islam noticeboards. I haven't looked in great detail beyond the immediate edits but in every case where St Anselm has reverted these edits if History2007 John Carter were still around I think it would be 3 editors reverting not 3RR. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The wide variety of transliterations of the word "quran" means that google search returns are not always sufficiently indicative of weight, i.e. quran, koran, qur'an, alkoran, coran, alquran, qoran, Qur'ân, Qur'ān, Qurʾān, Ḳurʾān etc. Pass a Method talk 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Response - 1RR on Pass a Method only - it's evident from that reply that Pass a Method doesn't understand that his edits are at the very least controversial, if not disruptive.

Sportsfan and others, has anyone actually looked at the sort of edits StAnselm is reverting and Pass a Method is pushing back? The Garden of Eden is the Biblical "garden of God", described most notably in the Quran and the Book of Genesis. Isn't this WP:OR as well as WP:POV? Is the Garden of Eden is described most notably in the Quran before the Book of Genesis? Is there anybody on this section who wouldn't revert this edit?

If you read it that way, yes, but if you rememeber that other scriptures mention the Garden of Eden such as Some Answered Questions or Sahih Muslim , or Sahih Bukhari , or Book of Mormon then no. Out of those 6 books, it is most notable in genesis and the Quran and i stand by that. Pass a Method talk 04:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take long to see that StAnselm apparently disapproves of a variety of "blue state" ideals, and edits to remove things they don't like, even if true and referenced, in any way possible. On Misplaced Pages this is rather easy and unless someone actually stops them they simply continue on degrading content and articles based on their ideology. I don't see that pattern with Pass a Method, instead I see a more broadening of subject matter to encompass more viewpoints, at least widely respected ones. Often backed up with sourcing. Then StAnselm counteracts to remove more content. This is exactly opposite their trajectory on subjects for which they approve. I suppose the same could be said of many editors but that is what I see. In summary I trust Pass A Method's editing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like out point out a couple of things that I have posted on my user page. The first is that I live in Australia. So while I am familiar with the term "blue state", I do not belong on the U.S. political spectrum. (I mention this also because Pass a Method apparently accused me of Anglo-American bias. I am not "Anglo-" either.) The second thing about me that I have posted on my user page is that, yes - I am a Christian. Now, obviously I understand the issues of neutrality and systemic bias as they pertain to Misplaced Pages. I try as much as possible to be neutral and objective in my edits. Interestingly, though, most of the articles under dispute are particularly Hebrew Bible topics. From my perspective, this edit from Pass a Method is somewhat akin to me editing the article so that the lead sentence says "The tree of life... is a term used in Revelation 22:1–2 and the Book of Genesis..." That, indeed, would be a POV edit. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

：：：：：：：：Sportsfan5000, I have no idea what "blue state" means, nor does it help me to identify any good edits in Pass a Method's contrib history. To get a benchmark, do you consider this a good/keepable or bad/revertable edit? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oculi, who said that edit was complete? I was reverted within 10 minutes of making that edit. I was planning to put it into context by adding Book of Mormon, Some Answered Questions mentions too. If you had read my first post you would have known that. Pass a Method talk 06:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And this makes me wonder - why didn't you say that on the talk page? Why didn't you start a discussion? Surely this doesn't count as discussing. So why didn't you follow WP:BRD? You have all these great facts about the Quran - why didn't you post them on the article talk page(s) instead of re-reverting? StAnselm (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well perhaps they were in process of improving the article and didn't realize they would have to negotiate every step of the way, even if ultimately their edits would work just fine for all concerned. People do get tired of having to battle just to improve articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Pass a Method should have known it from last time (where, I should point out, he made four edits, and I only reverted one of them) and had almost a month to draft some suitable text. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I already had collected references for Baha'i scriptures, yet after you revision my draft would no longer make as much sense. Pass a Method talk 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have no suggestions for what a solution should be, but what it shouldn't be is a double indefinite block; I can't imagine any situation in which Bigpoliticsfan's suggestion would be appropriate. A quick glance at SA's talk and PAM's talk shows plenty of comments from PAM on SA's talk, many of which are rather strongly worded and seemingly hostile, while there's only one comparable note from SA on PAM's talk. For examples of what I mean, see 23:26, 24 December 2013 (SA to PAM) and 05:42, 13 November 2013, 05:32, 10 December 2013 and the comment above it, 23:48, 22 December 2013, and 00:06, 23 December 2013 (PAM to SA). It definitely seems as if PAM's assuming bad faith more readily than SA, and the diffs that SA gives (example, 02:27, 23 December 2013) seem to back up his statements, while the diffs that PAM gives (example, 05:42, 13 November 2013) don't appear to be grounded in reality. Their talk page interactions are definitely not equally problematic. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: This calls for the WWJLP solution. WWJLP stands for What would Jean-Luc Picard do? Picard would recommend that both editors work this out with an independent mediator selected by and amenable to both parties and agree to abide by their decision. The deliberation should consist of brief statements from both parties, followed by questions from the mediator, and two closing statements in response to those questions. This should take no more than a few days to a week. Engage. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas, I am pretty confident that Jean Luc-Picard would revert this edit? If not, why not? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, that was not my full edit. I was reverted in 10 minutes in the midts of work-in-progress. Pass a Method talk 06:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Prime Directive would prevent him from interfering. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which shows the difference between a Misplaced Pages editor seeing someone insert Garden of Eden notable in the Quran and Genesis and reverting it and being on a starship. It's seems to be that some editors here don't understand the point of reverting edits. The Misplaced Pages religion articles are fringe and POV magnets, the Jesus article for example bleeps daily with editors reverting most of the edits made to it, and the main activity is simply preserving the article. The Bible articles where Pass a Method is making edits such as placing the Quran ahead of the Bible in the lead are typical of religion articles which have been long stable, finished and where new material is almost always bad. This is an example. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's about textual neutrality itself, not about being neutral on a starship. If you want to change the behavior here, then it's best to address both sides with a neutral mediator approved by both. As for the content itself, I think you will find a multitude of interpretations. I, for one, would bump up its legendary origins and role in mythological literature and downplay its importance in religion. After all, it is not as important as other religious issues on the table, and I don't personally believe that any religious narrative should dominate or supersede the comparative literature approach. And yet, we see this religious bias throughout Misplaced Pages, an encyclopedic work that should remain neutral in regards to scriptural interpretations. The fall of man narrative is not unique to any one religion as the Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil#Motif and Fall_of_Man#Similar traditions sections show. Funny how both sides ignore that fact. From where I stand, this a Babylonian myth and should be treated primarily as such. I'm sure you will disagree, hence the need for a neutral mediator that both parties will respect. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Amen! Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes but when you compare Genesis and the Quran to the other scriptures out there mentioning the garden of eden - then it WOULD make sense, wouldn't it? Pass a Method talk 06:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I forgot to mention this before, but in the interests of full disclosure, there is a draft RfC/U concerning Pass a Method, to which I contributed suggestions. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment StAnselm, so you're not gonna comment on whether you support an interaction ban or 1RR restriction between us? Pass a Method talk 05:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I had been holding off to see what explanation you would give for your conduct, but in light of the anti-conservative bias you explicitly articulate, and in light of these edits indicating either a refusal to discuss issues on talk pages, or else an incompetence in doing so, I would support a topic ban for Pass a Method on all religious articles. StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• CommentAs I started this I'm being bold and changing my section heading to include a 1RR restriction, which I see as a much better solution. I'm trouting myself (virtually) for not thinking about it first. User:Black Kite is right, and if I hadn't gone to bed I would have revised this then. I'd warned StAnselm over Garden of Eden where his 4th revert was just minutes outside 24 hours, didn't notice Tree of life (biblical) where he hit 4RR within 24 hours but by changing the order of words. I wouldn't want either to be blocked over this. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support 1RR restriction. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, from my perspective, the Quran is the only book in the world where millions of people have memorized chapters of it off the top of their head word for word. Plus I also know that the garden of eden is among the first stories told in the quran in sura Al-Baqara, plus it is repeated in many other quranic chapters. Hence its notability/weight to me is obvious without even necessarily doing a google search return count. Pass a Method talk 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See Argumentum ad populum. As easy as it is to argue by the numbers or by authority, or by the majority, it is just as easy to argue that the textual roots of the Babylonian religion are older and are closer to the original text. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How many Christians can read the New Testamant back to front off the top of their head? none that I know of. As for Muslims, there are millions of those. In fact this is standard practise to enable Muslims to pray tarawih which actually requires full quran memorization. Pass a Method talk 06:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, Argumentum ad populum. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I already ¡voted for 1RR, and 24hr block for any 3RR violations. But, as with most major religious topics, things can (and have) become contentious. Perhaps any future edits by these two, should first have consensus on either the talk page or at the relevant WikiProject page. - WOLFchild 06:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all measures suggested. Since more details have emerged about the latest spat, it's clear that this is a continuation of the previous incident (from a month ago), so this should go to RfC/U and/or ArbCom. Transforming edit warring into slightly slower edit warring won't have any appreciable benefits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This post by User:Someone not using his real name (for which thanks), linking Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content pretty well makes all of the above irrelevant. The first diff given by Pass a Method in the previous Noah's Ark of sura Hud and the Book of Genesis is self-incriminating, although Pass a Method evidently has no concept of the problem. It is not an issue of Jewish/Christian bias that Misplaced Pages references Bible stories/articles to the Jewish/Christian Bible, it is simply following WP:RS, since WP:RS place the 1000BCE, or whenever, ancient Jewish stories first and then the 7th Century Quran mentions based on the Jewish stories second. Muhammad's writings are tertiary references, chronologically. A couple of words in a sura does not give the Quran primary billing ahead of the Hebrew Bible in wikipedia article space. I suggest this section be closed with 1RR on Pass a Method as an interim action and draft RfC/U opened ASAP. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Topic-ban Pass a Method. I perused the diffs and the previous incident, and I can't see why this is being framed as a symmetric situation of edit-warring, when we obviously have a POV-pushing, WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor trying to introduce novel and WP:UNDUE reading into articles, then edit-wars to keep it in, and an editor with a clue who reverts to a previous, consensus version, and occasionally loses temper in the process? I really do not see any kind of honest difference of opinion, just a disruptive editor who should be removed in the best interest of the encyclopedia? No such user (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This won't happen on ANI because he clearly has fans; see the comments of Sportfan5000 above, for example. ANI is unsuitable for solving disputes unless they are very imbalanced in terms of numbers on each side of the BATTLE. ANI is also unsuitable for presenting large amounts of evidence. So on both counts this is more like the Tea Party situation that went to ArbCom in the summer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Someone not using his real name, re User:No such user's suggestion I would expect - the more I look at Pass a Method's pattern of edits - a topic ban would be the likely outcome of taking this to a more in depth location. But are you proposing starting from User:Halo Jerk1's draft RfC/U? (User Halo Jerk hasn't been online since 16 Dec. Are you proposing something/somewhere else? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how i'm going to be judged over an incomplete set of edits, like i mentioned above; it was a work-in-progrress. Plus there has already been an RfC on weihgt given to religions; (see here), but the close was inconclusive. Pass a Method talk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that we need another RfC similar to the one earlier this year, but this time with alterations made to our guidelines, since its obvious this is currently a grey area. This entire dispute falls within that grey area. It doesn't matter what happens on this thread, because inevitably, a month from now, or a year from now similar situations are going to pop up. if we keep it as it is now, the only conclusion i can see is more editos leaving wikipedia, either through frustration and personally quitting, or through blocks, and we'll have even less editors than we have now. Pass a Method talk 17:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, StAnselms version of the article apppears to represent the Conservapedia version of the article; (see here). I'm pretty sure most wikipedians here don't want to turn wikipedia into Conservapedia do we? Pass a Method talk 17:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comparison between wikipedia andConservapedia:
  • Garden of Eden, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia - similar
  • Tree of life/knowledge, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia - similar
  • Lot, on Conservapedia vs wikipedia somewhat similar

Why should Misplaced Pages be similar to Conservapedia? Pass a Method talk 18:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion about (comparing) Conservapedia & WP is pointless and borders on AGF violation. If CPedia has RS (which meets WP standards) in its articles, then what's the beef? Is there a problem in our project simply because one wiki looks like another? Could it be that CPedia has copied from WP? So what?? – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not just an AGF violation (and it isn't borderline, either); it's an in-your-face civility violation, because it amounts to saying (to paraphrase) "Why don't you go somewhere else?" Roccodrift (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not any sort of violation to point out the similarity. The violation is that Conservapedia is openly biased, so if WP articles look like it, then they're also biased. MilesMoney (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That, my friend, is the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. "Biased articles look like X. This article looks like X, therefore it's biased." It's the equivalent of saying. "Dogs have four legs. Horses also have four legs, therefore horses are dogs." StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Yes, but conservapedia's mission statement purpusefully presents one point of view. If this happens on an article which is as general and all-encompassing as the garden of eden, then we aren't doing it correctly. Pass a Method talk 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• I checked the the Columbia Encyclopedia via Qeustia. That entry is only 5 lines long, and starts "Garden of Eden, in the Bible, first home to humankind". The last sentence says "also mentioned in the Quran". The Encyclopedia of World Mythology (2009) has no mention of the Quran. (HighBeam; paywall) Britannica has no mention of the Quran in the first 100 words (which is the only ones I can access, total article is 190). It's very common in a Western context to mostly relate Garden of Eden to the Genesis narrative. Of course, the world is changing and Misplaced Pages is meant to have a global focus, so the traditional Western of presenting this way may need modification. But there is hardly a straightforward answer on how to handle this. The question of how these articles should be structured is complex; several viewpoints may be valid, we should try not making it into a battleground. Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but because of our Anglo-American focus guideline, wikipedia is different to those other encyclopedias. Pass a Method talk 21:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, support a ban on editing religion articles for Pass a Method only. Pass a Method has a long history of disruptive edits and edits against consensus, while StAnselm is one of Misplaced Pages's more productive editors. The comments by Pass a Method suggest an ideological motivation. -- 101.119.29.234 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Either dole out mutual indefinite blocks or take this to AN and seek consensus for a mutual community ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpoliticsfan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I thought you were kidding. - WOLFchild 21:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

No I'm not. This is a disgrace to the project of the first order. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Involved comment I consider myself involved, having myself been in a position similar to StAnslem, and this current situation feels far too familiar. Here is the pattern:

1. Pass a Method makes a Bold but problematic edit or move (often tendentious, reactionary, and not well thought out) often making similar problematic changes across multiple articles. (Example: Moving Lot (biblical person) to Lot (Abrahamic person) ???) Typically this is done with a bland edit summary that doesn't justify the edit such as "add content" or "copyedit" as if PaM is trying to slip the edit under the radar.

2. Someone (in this case StAnselm) recognizes the problem, reverts it, perhaps reverting parallel changes in other articles, and asking for discussion.

3. Instead of discussing, Pass a Method simply reverts back to their preferred version.

4. From this point the outcome varies, but generally ends up fairly quickly at a noticeboard, with a fair amount of reverting, user talk page templating, and often a bit of canvassing by PaM. ( for instance).

All of this could be avoided and the disputes could be quickly resolved if PaM simply followed either WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO. Like others who have commented, I don't think an interaction ban would be the ideal solution, and I don't think a 1RR restriction would solve the problem. It looks like a couple people have mentioned RfC/U, and with all due respect to the OP, I think that would be a slightly better direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Pass a Method, and Support an interaction ban for both. The "Abrahamic person" should be discussed at an RfC before someone runs off doing undiscussed moves (Pass a Method didn't reach out to the relevant WikiProject's for their comments)--especially since "Abrahamic" might not be the correct WP:UCN-compliant term for all contexts--such a move is thoroughly unnecessary since we've pretty much covered the Judeo-Christian contexts in the "biblical person" articles, like Lot, Cain and Abel, the articles on Mary, and accomplished an Islamic context in their own spin-off articles like Lot in Islam, Mary in Islam, etc. etc. We have articles on biblical persons and biblical narratives in the Quran. His contributions in adding "Abrahamic" and other information should be reviewed given that they might pose issues with WP:CFORK and being redundant at the articles he's effecting and several already-existing articles.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A non mutual punishment of any kind in this matter suggests you are more than involved; you are biased, which is the worst thing to be on ANI. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Pass a Method. I see no reason to punish StAnselm who has been trying to maintain the articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • • @Binksternet: See my comment directly above yours. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles for Pass a Method - this is further to comment and additional to the 1RR restriction on Pass a Method above, I haven't looked in depth at the other contribs outside Hebrew Bible subjects to judge whether further topic bans are called for, but have now looked at both sets of edits from 27 November and this week. Conclusion: it's evident that Pass a Method has a topic-ban level problem with Hebrew Bible articles. To come repeatedly to different articles on Genesis subjects and refusing discussion edit war the lead to "in the Quran and Genesis" falls simultaneously into all 3 of the WP:POV/WP:POINTY/WP:FRINGE areas. I cannot see a single edit from either the first run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible starting 27 November which were forestalled by the earlier appearance at ANI, and the second re-run of the second run of attempts to put the Quran ahead of the Hebrew Bible this time. Pass a Method was warned the first time, redoing the same edits and edit-warring up to 3RR justifies a topic ban. I say "first" only in relation to ANI, the editor has been trying to insert the Quran ahead of Genesis in various articles and even dabs since at least as far back as 7 Feb 2013 Eve is the first woman created by God in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. Abraham.. in the Quran, the Book of Genesis and Baha'i scriptures. These additions are long term and persistent. When challenged Pass a Method edit wars up to the 3RR line, then goes away and comes back later or takes the "in the Quran and Genesis" formula to a different article. If the editor's views on Judaism and Christianity moderate to recognize the usual chronological sequence of history of religions (Judaism->Christianity->Islam) then this can be demonstrated on Talk pages before the topic ban on Hebrew Bible articles is lifted. Pass a Method simply needs to demonstrate an understanding that the Hebrew Bible stories are firstly Jewish and not firstly Islamic, but there are posts above here indicating quite clearly that Pass a Method refuses to acknowledge what in WP:RS sources is axiomatic. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. If I had had time to write more, and the skill, my reasoning would have looked much like yours. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. Ignocrates (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Why "mutual"? If the objective is to quiet the dispute then a simple 1RR on Pass a Method as the editor adding POV controversial edits will suffice. There's no need to add a 1RR on editors reverting Pass a Method since if Pass a Method can't put edits such as in the Quran and edit straight back two times and three times there's nothing to revert. I see St Anselm and User:Editor2020 and before they left PiCo, History2007 and John Carter, and a few others, daily on my Watchlist reverting endless POV and fringe material edits from Bible articles. Being able to go up to 2RR or 3RR with the latest POV or fringe editor is essential to stop the articles deteriorating further. Most of these articles could actually be edit protected and frozen at 3 or 5 years ago when they were in better shape than today.

Closer? Note that Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Editor_deleting_Islamic_content is still open so this RM ideally should close that off too. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Either do a mutual editing restriction or nothing at all. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Disclosure: PaM messaged me on my talk page, as was mentioned above. Anyway...I am not comfortable with a vote being held on ANI to enforce topic bans, interaction bans or whatnot. Why not go through a dual RfC/U for both users, hash it out there, and then turn it over to AN upon closing? It will take longer but it's more appropriate for drawn out discussions, ensures that all sides are heard and can make any resolutions afterward more definitive. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning toward doing nothing at all at this point. Both parties to this dispute are veteran editors who should know better. Let them take the dispute to WP:DRN where they can find a way to work through their differences without being disagreeable. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Topic ban Pass a Method from religious topics. Those who've read my WP:RfC/U draft (mentioned a few times higher up) already know that I see Pass a Method as a very troubling editor who 99.9 % of the time can never edit neutrally, especially on religious topics. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• And as for Pass a Method having fans, if so, he does not have many. In ictu oculi and others, feel free to help me shape the WP:RfC/U. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Halo Jerk: You are just as biased as all the other editors suggesting a non mutual restriction in this matter. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support mutual 1RR restriction per Dougweller. Both are good editors! Both have strong convictions! The objective is to quiet the dispute not to punish transgressors. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Dougweller - I don't really understand your 1RR proposal as it relates to the editor preventing controversial edits repeatedly being added, i.e. St Anselm. The edits you have linked seem to all of them show Pass a Method adding Quran-first comments and editors, recently St Anselm, but previously other WP Religion editors, reverting Pass a Method. What about other editors reverting either Pass a Method or similar to edits to religion articles? As you know someone intent on pushing a fringe or POV or WEIGHT problem edit rarely stops with 1 revert, they very often take it to 2RR or 3RR. Under your proposal will St Anselm still be able to revert other editors than Pass a Method? If not then who is going to? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not my proposal, but it would be a 1RR restriction between the two editors and not affect them reverting anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As not being shown to have any likelihood of improving the project. The idea of "no reverts to each other" is weird as it does not allow for doing what Misplaced Pages states is the solution: require consensus for substantial changes to an article if anyone objects. Tell each to follow WP:CONSENSUS and avoid thousands of potential "solutions" which do not solve the issue as well as policy already provides. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Trainmastercrc's December 25th Edits.

Trainmastercrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been acting awkwardly in this edit, and the past ones, either he is acting abnormally, or was probably compromised, and apparently, Hes been using the S-word in his userpage, can an experienced editor check this out? Thanks, Dreth 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - He does have the word "shit" repeated on his user page 4,147 times. Yeah, that's a little weird. But some people have a hard time on the holidays. - WOLFchild 03:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged their user page for deletion under criteria G3 (pure vandalism). Thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely as being possibly compromised. only (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Only, I don't think that was necessary. Trainmastercrc has not made any poor edits to the mainspace, and his edits to his own userpage are not proof enough to believe his account is compromised. Consider unblocking, and reblock if he vandalises outside his userspace. Thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand by the block; it's a protection block for the project. He has made these very erratic and out of character edits to his user page. By blocking him, it prevents him from making any erratic, out of character edits to the articles as well. We'll see what happens if/when he attempts to appeal the block, but I'd lean to the "better safe than sorry" side here. only (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ross. The edits have been confined to user space where people are given a little more latitude with what they add there (like I said, maybe he's just 'venting') This editor hasn't disrupted the project. Can you really block someone for something they might do? - WOLFchild 21:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Only and User:Ross Hill, User: Thewolfchild. It would be better and suggest a compromise if this were changed to a temporary 1-week block, That way when Trainmastercrc's block expires, we can see what happens then. Dreth 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes...it's called prevention. From Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: "A block for protection may be necessary in response to...an account appearing to have been compromised." This is an account that appears to be compromised. only (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would rather take a chance that they make a few easily reversible edits, than keep them blocked for edits to their userpage that don't even contradict Misplaced Pages policy. Ross HillTalk to me! 01:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If the edits don't "contradict Misplaced Pages policy," why did you label them as vandalism and request deletion of his page? only (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In case the account was compromised and those edits were not theirs. Although in hindsight revdel is a better alternative. Ross HillTalk to me! 01:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, shit. Deference should go to only as the blocking admin, but if you disagree with an indef, you should be open to unblocking at the first request for one. Chevron deference at work in real life. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good block we shouldn't take chances on compromised accounts. The usual unblocking routes are available in the event there's really some other explanation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

Ultimate cosmic evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) committed a lot of page move vandalism in the last few minutes. The account is now blocked, but is there an easy way to revert these moves? I could certainly use a hand with it. only (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reverts to undo; many of them went through 3 moves so it's not as simple as just hitting "revert." I can't do these right now; I'm signing off in the next few minutes. Sorry to leave people this mess, but I just simply can't do this right now. only (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this is go through all his moves and Rollback them. The talk pages should be automatically re-moved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For me it looks like, that every of his moves are now undone and there is nothing else to do. Armbrust 03:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is something weird going on here. Before the spree of name edits the user did were seem to be completely legitimate and unrelated to the page move vandalism. This includes adding notability templates, proding an article, reverted blanking of a closed AFD, Templating an anon for content blanking etc.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe his/her account got compromised/hacked? Armbrust 03:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably just a case of someone building up edits to become autoconfirmed and not drawing any negative attention to itself before going on its spree. only (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I and a couple of other admins and users have cleaned up everything done by that account, at least as far as the obvious page move vandalism. What a mess! Thank you everyone for being around this evening to call attention to it and help. Please let me or this thread know if anyone notices anything that hasn't been taken care of. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC

I wasted a while going through these untill I realised that you have all done them already. Never mind, thanks everyone for your prompt action. This is the kind of vandalism that with the best will in the world we should have absolutely no patience with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Something seems wrong with this picture, especially the fact that the suspected operator/culprit is Ginsuloft. While I don't doubt the CU report, I do doubt whether this was good hand/bad hand socking or whether it was a family member who created that account and then went on a spree. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I find this edit by Ginsuloft to be kind of peculiar. I don't know why he would disable the bot like that... only (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait! So it was Ginsuloft all along? Oh my, considering how he contributed to the encyclopedia. Dreth 16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is surprising. Thankfully his attempt to gain sysop tools was unsuccessful. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We have seen admins go bonkers and the results can be very disruptive. That said, I've emailed Ginsuloft and am awaiting a reply, which may clear things up. Does Ginsuloft use a shared or public IP? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And if it's a static IP, then what happens. Dreth 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell with WP:GHBH accounts, because it could be a family member or a dynamic IP. Unless there are a lot of behavioural similarities, they should leave the suspected sockpuppeteer alone if they are making useful contributions. Dark Sun (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor User2001 and Jook-sing article

A new, so far single purpose editor User2001 is making persistent and repeated major changes (mostly deletions) to the article Jook-sing, without Edit summaries or Talk page discussion, despite repeated requests to do so in my Edit summaries and on the user's Talk page. I have also posted on the article's talk page. No response.

We seem to be facing an insoluble communication problem which indicates possible competency problems.

Can an Admin please have a look? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I support HiLo48 in his concern about this editor's actions. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As per Jack Greenmaven. Also note similar edits:

• User2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writer1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writer1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked User2001 for 3RR violation. You may want to advise user in his talk page what and why. he can reply there if he wishes as the talk page is open. Should he continue edit warring, then there will be longer blocks forthcoming. -- Alexf 13:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I note we still have absolutely no response from this editor. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

92.238.171.3

Now archived: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Ethnic-motivated edit warring by anonymous users continues. 92.238.171.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/195.89.201.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) still edit-wars to force Hungarian version of the town name upper in the infobox. He has been told on both talk pages what the current practice is, and why he was reverted, but does not seem to internalize it. 195.89.201.254 was blocked for two weeks (92 was not), but immediately resumed the same behavior after it expired. No such user (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is silence a consent for revert-warring, or what?
For the start, I'll issue a WP:ARBMAC warning ({{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}}), and maybe AE will be more willing to refer to the matter. No such user (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is really inspiring to raise an issue here and then continue talking to myself. It would be more encouraging that at least someone blocks me per WP:BOOMERANG; at least, that would mean that someone is paying attention.

Anyway, more from the editor in question:

• "which is absolutely disgusting racism, prejudiced and abhorrent language. Anyone talking so openly racist on wikipedia should surely be banned from contributing on here"
• "you really should not support ethnic cleansing of Hungarians. Chauvinism should be made an offence on wikipedia too."
• "We see openly anti-Hungarian attitudes here, it is absolutely appalling that such individuals are trying to dominate here."

To make the circus complete, he is then being reverted by a sock of Bonaparte (or of someone similar), and my SPI request sits idle for 6 hours

Can someone apply a cluebat... PLEASE??? No such user (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Spreadsol

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

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

This user has repeatedly added copyvios (Good Ol' Freda, Down Terrace, I'm Still Here (film), Pioneer (Film), possibly Milo (film), Chawz, from , from , etc.). They claim to work for the distributor responsible for the films, in which case they are abusing Misplaced Pages as a marketing medium. The user is completely non-communicative, with zero user talk edits in four years. MER-C 08:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block until they start discussions. There is also a WP:COI. See Talk:Grand Piano (film) where the editor writes "I work for Magnet Releasing and this is not a copyright infringement as it is our synopsis. I cited ComingSoon as well." Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help clean up the copyvio text it would be appreciated. I can delete any articles that need it or rev/del old edits to suppress the copyvio. Advice on the images would be useful also. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through the image uploads, everything is now chill in that regard. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared out the remaining text copyvios. MER-C 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

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

We just had a conflict on Ashkenazi Jews where consensus was reached with great trouble. Now Nishidani (talk · contribs), who in the beginning participated in the consensus forming process, started to make non-consensus edits, claiming they are "per talk page", while the discussion is still ongoing and at least two editors disagree with his opinion. Please protect the page and warn Nishidani. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of those involved in the discussion, I'm not sure admin actions are needed at this stage. I agree that Nishidani's latest edit was premature (and not correct in my own opinion) but I have the impression all users involved actively discuss and that there is very little edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was reached. We had three days of stalling, and only Jeppiz took some trouble to actually look at sources. The other editors, Debresser, Tritomex, and now Ankhmorpork, simply asserted an opinion in support of a text that is verifiably false. This frivolous complaint should at least draw administrative eyes to gaming, and Debresser's failure to respond adequately to serious, RS-based edit proposals, in favour of his personal POV. After some days of getting chat, I made this edit, with the edit summary, 'as per talk', where numerous sources justify it, and no one troubled to answer the evidence.

Content-wise, I replaced a statement which represents a widespread traditional view as a fact (violating WP:NPOV), with a statement, supported by quotes from eminent sources, showing the mainstream view, and the fact that some scholars variously contest it.

The only response by Debresser to detailed examination of several sources which corroborate my point were (a) assertions of his personal feelings about the language in question, and (a) a rabbinical joke. No work, no sweat, no reading, just an attitude.

Examine the quality of comment here where there is a clear case of stalling normal editorial decisions. If that is too long the gist is summed up by the contrast in the following diffs between attempts to argue from sources and the flippant replies they receive from Debresser, who is chatting to defend an identifiable POV against policy:

I wrote this, and Debresser replies with his personal opinion which counts apparently for him more than RS

The pattern repeats itself, as I answered here and here and only to see Debresser fashioning a rabbinical story to justify his refusal to accept or even acknowledge the force of the several sources I cited.

That page is generally held hostage, and is a complete mess. I think over two years I've managed to make only four or five successful edits to emend its patent and ubiquitous POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser - warning someone is something you can do. It isn't actually an Administrative action if it is just meant to be an ordinary warning. This isn't the page to request protection either. So the reasons you've given for bringing this here don't seem appropriate for ANI and the only other editor besides Nishidani posting here sees no need for action. I am thereby closing this discussion as there is no appropriate request here for Admin action. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

70.53.97.28

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

70.53.97.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been replacing talk pages of articles about children's movies with the text of the article. I've left two messages on their talk page, but have gotten no response. Not quite vandalism, but unhelpful and baffling. Trivialist (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Request

User Vahram Mekhitaryan repeatedly added wrong, not related links in articles, and starting edit wars. Please take some action against it. That user repeatedly adding original research statement (), which has been removed per discussion at talk page, but he readding it again. Adding non related links (, , ). Besides, reverting edits with uncertain/wrong explainations in edit summary. He was previosly blocked 3 times for edit war in same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Δαβίδ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What discussion on the talk page? There's nothing there but a list of WikiProjects (I even checked the history and found nothing). Erpert 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

, that statement has been removed, but that user added it again and again.--Δαβίδ (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP address causing problems at a talk page

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

On the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article, me and other users have repeatedly warned this IP address that talk pages aren't forums but he doesn't seem to understand. Due to his/her edit-warring (), the talk page has already went through article protection. Something needs to be done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned the user on his/her talk page. Actually, I issued two warnings because the comments s/he was making sounded rather bigoted. Erpert 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And now s/he's complaining about me. Guess I walked into that one (I can handle it though). Erpert 08:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I can't handle it. Can someone block this person, please? Erpert 08:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs) has been treating the talk page like a forum the past week or so. S/he has been edit-warring over libel remarks which is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. The user has already been warned on his/her talk page a few hours ago. This is the second time I am here at ANI in the past 24 hours. The talk page has already gone through page protection due to the problems caused by the user. Numerous users have done everything they could to tell him or her to stop treating wikipedia like a forum and to please talk about how to build a better encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that hasnt been done yet. Proper action against the user is required asap. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked already; hadn't seen this thread yet. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed for SIU seal

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

File:Siuseal.gif was edited, replacing the SIU seal with the new SIU Edwardsville seal, which is NOT appropriate for the SIU system or for SIU Carbondale. Other editors and I have tried to revert it to the actual SIU seal, but it retains the new SIUE seal: File:Siuseal.gif

Needed: 1) Reversion of File:Siuseal.gif to actual SIU seal; 2) Creation of new file for the new SIUE seal. GWFrog (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done - new upload is at File:Southern Illinois University Edwardsville seal.jpg -- Diannaa (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Page-move dispute on Die Freiheitlichen

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

Since its creation, the title of the article was rejected. "Die Freiheitlichen" is a political party representing a german minority in northern Italy, for which no english or italian translation exists. A single user insists on translating that name, suggesting and trying different translations ("The Libertarians", "The Freedomites", ... all original research with no occurence in valid sources), but gains no consensus. The extensive discussion is summarised here. In short: most editors (except one) support to leave the german proper name as title for this article. But moving the article to the "agreed" title "Die Freiheitlichen" results in this one editor reverting the move. In HIS opinion, consensus means, that HE has to agree, not the majority.--Sajoch (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would really help if you specified which "single user" you're speaking of (I think I have an idea, but...), and after you do that, you have to notify him/her about this discussion. At any rate, this sounds like a job for WP:RPP, which I'll do right now. Erpert 19:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Erpert 19:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mallexikon

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

Mallexikon edited against WP:CON at the German acupuncture trials article

Mallexikon did not have consensus to keep the coat rack material. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. Editors commented at the AFD that there were problems with the article, including the problems with the WP:COATHOOK text. See WP:LOCALCON. Mallexikon did acknowledge at the German acupuncture trials talk page that We found consensus to limit the information about the results. But Mallexikon restored the outdated information about the results of the trials along with the low level details that do not benefit the reader. There was consensus to limit the information about the results, but Mallexikon continued to restore the disputed unimportant details that are not WP:MEDRS compliant.

Mallexikon edited against WP:CON at the Traditional Chinese medicine article

Mallexikon do not have consensus to continue to restore the original research and medrs violations. After I explained the text failed verification and the sources were not MEDRS complaint, Mallexikon did not provide verification for the original research and did not show the sources were MEDRS complaint but decided to go ahead and removed the tags when the sources and text still had problems at that time.

I tried discussing the serious problems with both of the articles on the editor's talk page. But Mallexikon continues to argue for including the MEDRS violations at the German acupuncture trials article and continues to argue for including the original research and MEDRS violations at the Traditional Chinese medicine article. I'm not trying to be cruel here, but WP:COMPETENCE is required. Mallexikon should not be allowed to continue to violate the rules on Misplaced Pages. There has been too much of WP:IDHT as well as WP:TE editing by Mallexikon. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@QuackGuru - If someone edited without consensus, that person is clearly you. -A1candidate (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

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

Myself and another editor over at Edward Makuka Nkoloso are having a disagreement and the interpretations of policy are so fundamentally different that I think we need a few more opinions on the matter. Thanks! Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm "other editor". Agreed requiring arbitration/unbiased opinion. Open to suggestions on best and least intrusive method. Roguetech (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you post this at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That was next on my list, and I have since done so. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the dispute on whether the orphan tag belongs on the page? Or is it something to do with the sources—I'm a bit confused, but you seem to be altering both. – Quadell 20:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The source saying that Nkosolo was going to be a Martian missionary is the main one. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"The source saying that Nkosolo was going a Martian missionary is the main one." Whether he wishes to dispute the others issues of orphan, notability, etc.... I would suggest (on his behalf) that the other issue is the source at http://ed5015.tripod.com/PaZambiaSpaceFlight2.htm Roguetech (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

There is a bit of a BLP issue going on here, new editor calling various academics muslim extremists (they are not BTW). He has added the content three times now, I have posted to his talk page twice and the article talk page also, can an admin give him a poke please? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Further to this, there are source misrepresentation, "Many newspapers and inquiry commission pointed this as targeted attack on Hindu Pilgrims returning from Aayodha" is entirely wrong, only one commission has said the attack on the train was pre planned. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone is trying to remove the properly cited content to make the text one sided. Every sentence added is cited and there are court verdicts which are important issue for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprabin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the points above. This edit:"the 2002 Gujarat violence, also termed as the Gujarat pogrom by the muslim extremists<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> " - where precisely do you get "muslim extremists" from? Who actually calls them that? Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:CDTPP abuse to my userpage and usertalk

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

I have previously reported User:CDTPP as an obvious sockpuppet of User:Richard Daft, but decided to take no further action on my report as I decided to give this user a chance to redeem himself and become a positive contributor to the project. However, he has made abusive comments on both my usertalk and userpage and it's about time his uncivil editing was dealt with. I edit this site and expect both my userpage to be left alone and to be able to use this site without being the subject of abuse from someone who is still the subject of a community ban, which can be seen here. The latest abuse from today can be seen here, with vandalism to my userpage carried out here and a personal attack back in August here which took a number of months to notice. Now considering this user is banned by the community, I think I've been rather generous in allowing this troll to stay about and prove himself as being mature and to show competence, however clearly civility is beyond this individual. The majority of his edits seem to be some creepy stalking of pages I have created (though not against the rules it is nonetheless weird). Going further back he user has made personal attacks against User:Dweller. I'm asking that this disruptive editor be dealt with by an admin as quite frankly he's had his chance, is flouting a community ban and is close to driving a long term user away from this site (in the same way he drove away long-term WP:CRIC editor User:BlackJack. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Although what he said in your first diff seemed rather rude, the sockpuppet investigation didn't confirm that that account is actually his after all. Normally I would suggest you go to WP:RPP, but since you are otherwise retired, I'm not sure you'll feel like doing that. Erpert 02:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My userpage is already protected, as this user previously operated under a number of IPs and so the page was protected so just registered users only could edit it. This was also the case with User:BlackJack and such was the disruption caused by this individual to the WP:CRIC project that the project talk page was protected. What would you suggest in getting this disruptive user dealt with? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I warned him/her. Erpert 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know about Richard Daft, but it looks like a different sockpuppet is afoot (I didn't open an SPI because this new account hasn't actually made any bad edits, but I'll watch him/her). Erpert 18:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have opened an SPI here and shall add that new sockpuppet to it. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to NAC this, but I decided not to because I'm still not convinced (yet) that either new user is a sockpuppet of Mr. Daft. Thus, the SPI and the incivil statements are two different issues. Erpert 03:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Think this can be NAC now, the user in question has been banned and CU found multiple sockpuppets and a probable link to Richard Daft. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:JujitsuJohn

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

This user has done nothing but create a string of frivolous article deletion requests, which would suggest that he is WP:NOTHERE. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that nominating Language and Human skull for deletion are disruptive nominations, those are two nominations in two months. I strikes me as premature to characterize this as a "string of ... requests" unless there are deleted contributions that are invisible to non-admin editors. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Two points are sufficient to define a line, especially in the absence of any oher points. But if people want to wait for him to put up a third one before acting, that's OK with me. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For a new editor to jump into Misplaced Pages with two patently ludicrous AFD nomination can only mean a deliberate troll. Assuming good faith would be a little naive in this case, surely? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 00:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that I non-admin closed the "Human skull" AFD. Chris857 (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Although I generally try to assume good faith, I always get suspicious when a user's very first edit (or one of his/her first edits) is an AfD). Erpert 01:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Debate at Talk:Santa Claus

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

Over the past two weeks or so a debate has been going on at Talk:Santa Claus over what position the article should take in stating whether or not Santa Claus is a palpable entity, most of which can be seen here. While the discussion initially started over which adjective best fit the introductory sentence (the debate primarily focused on using "fictitious", "fantasy", "mythical", or some combination of these), it has since evolved into dispute about the entire article's focus on the reality of Santa Claus of which the editors involved seem to be almost equally divided for and against. Two sources currently used in the article confirm Santa Claus as non-existent (although the credibility of the about.com source could be questionable).

Ultimately, I would like to know how to advance in this situation as well as receive the opinions of non-involved editors. felt_friend 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The reality of Santa is an ongoing contentious issue. Some believe he's real, some believe he's fake. "Mythical" is usually acceptable to both. You appear to want the article to be "Santa-denying" which is a non-neutral POV. I hope you had a merry Christmas, or whichever winter (northern) holiday(s) you celebrate. htom (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that explicitly stating that Santa Claus is a fictitious character does not violate NPOV as per the citations provided. That being said, thank you and I hope you have also had an enjoyable holiday season. felt_friend 02:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't believe in Santa, you're not going to get any gifts for Christmas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Big Ol' Guy is based on the historical St Nikolaos and is a figure central to traditional seasonal festivities. So mythical rather than fictional. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm on vacation with limited access to the Net but since I was notified and was the editor involved at the start of the discussion on the talk page I have to ask: This is at ANI? Seriously? This is a content dispute. Look at WP:DRN for the steps you can take. --NeilN 03:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. There is no action needed here from the administrators. only (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Santa Claus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

On Pantheism

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

On Pantheism, a user User:NaturaNaturans is reverting the years old content for almost no described reason, except "advertising", once tells me to bring to talks, and then reverts without even discussing, saying "stop edit warring." I find it obvious Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it issue. Because every single removed sentence is sourced, and doesn't claim any dubious. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have problems with both editors on this one. I find at least some of the sources used by Bladesmulti to be highly questionable, as for example this page from the World Pantheist Movement which isn't really suitable material anyway (it's an apologia for constructing a supposedly Christian form of pantheism), but even then it is being used to justify a statement which it implicitly disputes (it admits in the first sentences that Christianity is in general panentheistic rather than pantheistic). That said, NaturaNaturans's sense of ownership of the article is extreme. It takes two to edit-war, and here we have those two. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry User:Mangoe, I haven't posted "http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/gospel.htm", it's some other editor who did. I only added the sources to single section. Not any other. Look properly. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If it appears that I am claiming 'ownership' of the page, I apologize. That is not my intention. Bladesmulti is attempting to add obscure information about Hinduism and even put up a Hindu plant as the lead picture of the page about pantheism. It's silly. NaturaNaturans (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh, i only sourced the years old information, because it was removed by you. Other than that if the plant has polytheistic values, how it cannot be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:3. (Incidentally, I give third opinions quite often, but this is such a touchy subject that I'm going to let someone else try and sort it out.) Erpert 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Listed at WP:3. Erpert 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RoslynSKP breach of Arbcom restriction

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

During a recent ARBCOM hearing case closed on 23 December 2013 RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) was restricted in reverting Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute#RoslynSKP revert restriction RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period. They appear to have broken that restriction over 26/27 December.

1. reverted
2. reverted
3. reverted
4. reverted

Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

RoslySKP has been notified of discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are all reverts, with the added distraction that the normally suggested "Undid revision" or "Reverted edit" summaries have been purposefully changed to appear like good faith edits were being made. This is not only in breach of ArbCom's revert sanction, but their finding that inaccurate edit summaries were being made Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision#RoslynSKP: Edit warring – this is a clear repeat of that behaviour, only RoslynSKP has attempted to make it appear more subtle. Ma®©usBritish 09:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• It appears to me that the situation is more complex than Jim Sweeney is presenting it, and he is leaving out that the article contained a sourced reference to the unit's involvement in Gallipol - , which Sweeney's edit removed - , and that he then edit warred with RoslynSKP in order to keep that accurate information out of the article. This could be read as an attempt by Sweeney to incite RoslynSKP into an edit war, and then get her topic banned. I think it might make sense if both Jim Sweeney and RoslynSKP were put on a clear and simple 0RR, and if either breaks that, then they get blocks of increasing duration. These blocks would be distinct from any blocks related to the ArbCom case remedy. It is difficult in a dispute where two people have been in conflict to restrict one and not the other. One sided solutions can end up with situations as we have here. SilkTork 11:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment (and I declare myself as one who has edited the article at times, and had views opposite to those of RoslynSKP) - re No. 1 Gallipoli edit. That some constituent units of the Division had served in Gallipoli is in the article (first sentences of the "Formation" section), is not disputed, and JimSweeney had not removed that from the article. He had removed reference to it the lede with the summary "misleading suggests the division fought at Gallipoli" GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, as a breach of an arbcom-imposed restriction, I think this would normally be raised at WP:AE rather than here? (Although, since it's now here it presumably might as well stay here.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Gallipoli in the lede has also been discussed on the talk page Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Lede section and Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Gallipoli campaign The second link from 21 December The division never served in the Gallipoli campaign so to mention it in the lead is way off focus. Can you self revert or provide a reason it should be there. And @ SilkTork in order to keep that accurate information out of the article. there is no reference that the division fought at Gallipoli as it was formed after that campaign had ended. so I did not removed sourced content. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• "This could be read as an attempt by Sweeney to incite RoslynSKP into an edit war, and then get her topic banned." – No it couldn't. Given that ArbCom laid down a specific sanction of "one revert per page in any 72 hours" and RoslynSKP has clearly made four reverts, and not only that but attempted to mask those reverts with friendly looking edit summaries, and not only that but within days of the ArbCom ruling, this isn't a question of whether she was baited into war editing, but that she has acted against ArbCom's decision and attempted to conceal it. Looking at what content was changed and ignoring the actual editor's behaviour is completely missing the point; the ArbCom ruling focused on behavioural issues not content. Am I seriously seeing here that after all that trouble to secure an ArbCom ruling those behaviours are being ignored, because the longer ANI prattles on about content changes rather than ArbCom breaches the wider the time gap becomes between incident and reaction, making any call for a block to actually enforce ArbCom's sanctions too distant to be applied, giving RoslynSKP more reason to flaunt ArbCom on a later date. In short, we're repeating history here by wasting so much time on the wrong issues that the real concerns are being cast aside and offenders unpunished. I appreciate that SilkTork took time to look for any signs that RoslynSKP was baited by Jim, but you can't really claim that four concealed reverts was the result of a minor provocation. Ma®©usBritish 14:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • MarcusBritish sit down, have a biscuit. Your hysterics are doing nothing to resolve the issue, but inflame it more. I'm going to propose that since you're looking for an arbitration remedy to be enforced, that you and Jim Sweeney file an Arbitration Enformcement action and specifically ask for expedited enforcement as the issue has already been discussed somewhat and the detatchment from the offenses is growing. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no hysterics here and nothing to inflame, so a little less of your hyperbolic cheek, laddie. The terms of RoslynSKP's sanctions include a Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision#Standard enforcement – I can only propose that ANI haven't got the compunction to act on it despite the evidence above. All those admins "willing to make difficult blocks". So far in 2-years, not one has had the gall to do that in this case, and now there are ArbCom initiatives granting blocks they still don't. Now, if you're only interested in your wiki-career and not the particular concerns at hand, please do not waste my time pinging me with frivolous remarks about biscuits, you'd do better to look who is actually at fault in this matter by reading the evidence given above instead of idly parading yourself in an attack on others interests just to create unnecessary drama for yourself. Ma®©usBritish 22:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Responses to Jim Sweeney -

1. This is not a revert. Jim Sweeney had undone an edit by me claiming it was misleading as it suggested the division fought in ANZAC. I redrafted the information to ensure that it was the men who were being described, not the division.

2. I replaced the word "defeat" with "stopped" as no territory was lost and the EEF occupied the position unopposed the next day.

3. I reinstated part of the information cut by Jim Sweeney to do with the direct quote as the paraphrase is misleading. This was not a straight revert, as I did not include the information about the Vilayets also cut by Jim Sweeney.

4. As the inbox did not include any battles, only the name of the campaign, I added three notable operations per the Template guide. This was not a straight revert as Jim Sweeney cut the Battle of Romani, the Southern Palestine Offensive (not mentioned in the Battles subsection) and the Third Transjordan attack. They were replaced by Battle of Romani, Southern Palestine Offensive and Battle of Megiddo (1918) (not mentioned in the battles subsection}. For some reason Jim Sweeney cut these notable battles from the infobox. Even in the body of the article, in the Battles subsection, Jim Sweeney has cut mention of the First Battle of Amman and the Second Battle of Amman.

I have attempted to discuss these issues and more, on the Talk page here , here , here , here , here and , without any response. --Rskp (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've obviously never read the definition of a WP:REVERT ... and how the clearer definition in WP:3RR applies quite clearly to WP:1RR. You've totally violated your restriction ... unbelievably, really ES&L 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

... and in case you miss it: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" ES&L 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Never having read all the guidelines on Misplaced Pages, and never having been directed to these links before, I thought a revert was undoing the whole edit by someone else. --Rskp (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@RoslynSKP: At Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division you began seven threads in three days, each complaining about various content issues, including one called "Ownership issues" made against Jim Sweeney on 26 December. Despite the intentions of the ArbCom case to lessen the disputes, you have in fact only continued to escalate your behaviour further, including your surreptitious reverts – you've been on Wiki for 3.5 years, there is no way you can claim not to know what qualifies as a revert except by playing ignorant and hoping it will be seen as "a simple mistake" along with all your other "mistakes" noted on ArbCom. And do you seriously think seven disputes is reasonable and not overly presumptuous? And why are you complaining that no one replied quickly enough.. it's the Xmas/New Year period, people often have other things to do during this period that run around responding to a shopping list full of your disputes. You don't need to have "read all the guidelines" to have a little common sense, and there's nothing to stop you looking up a guideline or policy before committing to an action, as it's usually ANI that leads you to regret in retrospect. For someone who has "all the answers" from a period 100 years old, you sure lack the skill to find answers to being a better editor in the Misplaced Pages pages, as you're quickly heading yourself towards unsuspending that topic ban ArbCom proposed. Ma®©usBritish 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Since most of us just came from Arbcom, let me post this here:

An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

Now there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Roslyn is in breach of arbcom mandated restrictions. Whatever else may be debated above, the fact that more than one revert occurred here means that the first uninvolved admin has an ethical obligation to block RSKP in accordance with an arbcom mandate, and the longer the guilty party goes without a block the worse this is going to get. We can sort the greater whole of this mess out later, but right now we need that block. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

IP user is still causing problems at a talk page

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

212.174.38.3 (talk · contribs) has been treating the talk page like a forum the past week or so. S/he has been edit-warring over libel remarks which is not helpful in building an encyclopedia. The user has already been warned on his/her talk page a few hours ago. This is the second time I am here at ANI in the past 24 hours. The talk page has already gone through page protection due to the problems caused by the user. Numerous users have done everything they could to tell him or her to stop treating wikipedia like a forum and to please talk about how to build a better encyclopedia. Unfortunately, that hasnt been done yet. Proper action against the user is required asap. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced claim to List of top international rankings by country by 99.244.158.43

I removed the unsourced claim (that Iran is the world's oldest country) from List of top international rankings by country. However, the ip user, 99.244.158.43, keeps reverting my edit by claiming the linked article History of Iran as a citation. There is no claim on that page that Iran is the world's oldest country. There is only a statement that Iran is one of the world's oldest civilizations. However, the ip user either doesn't understand the difference or just doesn't care. In anycase, they keep adding back in the unsourced claim. I've given the user 4 warnings already, but they've ignored it. Transcendence (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would normally suggest WP:3, but it appears that the content the IP is adding is clearly wrong (and the angry edit summaries aren't helping matters either). However, s/he hasn't edited anywhere since Dougweller's final warning, so let's just see what happens. Erpert 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to NAC this, but I noticed that earlier today the IP made this edit. I don't know enough about this topic to determine if the edit is legit or not though; would anyone else like to check it out? Erpert 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Newby posted BLP on user page

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

The business article they started has been deleted and the BLP, repeated on his user page, Annael is likely to be deleted also. There's a chance this is the subject of the article who founded the company and doesn't yet understand Misplaced Pages. See User:Mr_Annael. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The user page is not problematic. The mainspace article about the person, Annael, has a BLP PROD template on it. Administrator action doesn't seem to be needed until the clock on that runs out. (It doesn't seem to meet the A7 criterion.) I've added a conflict of interest notice to the existing warnings/notifications already on the user's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The "article" needs to go long before the expiry of a PROD, the userpage is bordering on promotion. ES&L 12:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked for sourcing but found very little, although sources certainly may exist in another language. I didn't see anything as violating BLP on the article so maybe it's just too early for that subject. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a wholly non-notable person who thinks this is LinkedIn ES&L 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the article as an expired prod and added the {{userspace}} and {{__NOINDEX}} tags to his userspace. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor creating multiple vanity pages on their family members

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

User:Rakesh Ricky Panwar is accumulating multiple pages on himself and various family members (see the multiple speedy-deletions), a process he seems intent on continuing despite being asked to desist. (See also the deleted Talk page entries.) AllyD (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets at Middle Ages

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

My experience with sockpuppeting POV-pushers has been pleasantly minimal, so I'm hoping those with more experience with wikiconflicts can help me out here.

Middle Ages is a vital article, and several fantastic contributors (particularly Ealdgyth) made it a Featured article and have worked hard to maintain its quality. Recently, Sumatro and JanHusCz have been tag-teaming there to promote Bulgaria's importance, deteriorating the article's quality and engaging it edit wars with several other editors. Ealdgyth brought the situation to my attention, opining "This is the sort of crap that drives good content editors away." So I did a little research, and here's what I found.

In May of this year, Ceco31 was permanently topic-banned from anything relating to Bulgaria, and was blocked from all edits (account creation blocked) for 3 months. (See previous.) His last edits were to editwar on Bulgarians. He did not return under that username when his 3-month block was lifted, but Sumatro showed up in August instead, immediately using rather complex Wikisyntax and engaging in an editwar right off the bat at Bulgarians. It sure looks like a topic-ban-evading sock to me. Sumatro edited nothing but the Bulgarians article all month, then in September switched to Nina Dobrev, a model, where he's only interested in the "Bulgarian nationality and citizenship" aspects. He editwarred there, and edited nothing but that one article for months. Meanwhile, JanHusCz also showed up on Misplaced Pages in September, and after the 4 days and 12 edits it takes to get auto-confirmed, he immediately set about at Nina Dobrev making the same sort of changes as Sumatro, using wikisyntax and citing Misplaced Pages policy like a pro. Both quit Nina in early December and set on Middle Ages together, edit warring to emphasize Bulgaria there. Despite agreeing completely, and reverting to each other's versions, they never once use each other's talk page or really reply to each other on article talk pages. I have no doubt that both Sumatro and JanHusCz are sockpuppets (or at least meatpuppets) of the topic-banned Ceco31.

JanHusCz has been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation, but I think permanently blocking all three accounts for evading a topic ban would be appropriate. I'm not directly involved with any of these users or articles, and my only interest is in protecting vital, featured articles in general. Is it okay for me to simply block the accounts? Are there any hoops I need to jump through first? Thanks for any assistance. – Quadell 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't a request for checkuser be opened first to determine whether they are the same editor, or could you or another admin simply block these accounts because they are duck accounts? Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This looks duck-worthy to me, but I have little experience with this. Also, I just saw that Only opened a (partial) sockpuppet investigation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumatro, but that doesn't mention Ceco31 or the topic ban. – Quadell 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Ceco31 or the topic ban, so please feel free to make additions to /move my sockpuppet investigation request. I was tempted to pull the trigger on a duck block, but leaned towards the SPI for the moment. Any other admin is more than welcome to implement longer blocks if they desire; I have no objection to that. only (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, best I guess if we move discussion over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement??

I see a rather racist "advertisement" on the page People's_Liberation_Army (here is a screenshot). Is this intended, an error, or has something got hacked on wikipedia? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 15:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is the talk page that the link at the bottom of the ad links to: https://test.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, it's in the html page source, but can't be edited from within the article. Photo is here Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that one of the templates that is being used in the page has been vandalized. Finding which one may be a little challenging. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be vandalism of the {{Infobox Chinese}} template. I used only that template, with no parameters filled in, at User:Quadell/draft, and the ad shows up. – Quadell 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Found and reverted at {{Infobox Chinese/Footer}} --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice work. Was that a coordinated attack by a political group, or just a hoax? If it was the former, the problem will surely reappear. – Quadell 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. :) May be drop a notice at https://test.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia ? And I agree with Quadell. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Left a note there, though who knows if people will read it or not. The other problem is it took purging the pages to clear the "ad" off of it and I probably missed quite a few, if not most. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is the backlink for the template: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_Chinese. Let's look through the pages in the list and purge them. I'll do my bit. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the test.wikipedia.org site linked in these "adverts" which are still showing up actually owned by wikipedia or is it just some troll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.141 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Test Misplaced Pages is where the developers test new things before doing a mass deployment, I think at least, and is owned and operated by the Foundation --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have blacklisted the page that they keep linking to, in hopes that it will start to calm this down, but we'll see. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have also created abuse filter 600 which should detect and block such edits, a little more generically. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems almost all the pages using the template (several thousands it seemed) have been purged. Just wondering: Was all of it done manually or is there is a bot/script at the disposal of the admins that helped with that? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Modifying a template actually queues a purge on all the pages, but they get stuffed into the job queue. Depending on traffic, it could take a long time before those purges actually happen. If the job queue isn't that long, though, it happens quickly. "action=purge" just forces it to happen immediately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one, http://en.wikipedia.org/Cultural_revolution 96.232.85.20 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

user:Masroor Khan0 and IP 124.124.22.142

Can someone who has more knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and editing ability than I do look at User:Masroor Khan0 the page seems to provide a lot of information about this editor that seems like a violation of self promotion. Along with the articles Sant Kabir Nagar district and Bakhira Sanctuary. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcomed (and advised) the new editor. Miniapolis 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Undid many of thier edits. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User owning and going against Wiki policy and project decision

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

User:Soapfan2013 has been owning the List of One Life to Live cast members for a while now, and refuses to let any changes be made. I applied the WP:YEAR policy and the decision of WP:SOAPS about requiring a one-calendar year gap between appearances to lower fancruft to the list. And (s)he refuses to let any changes be made than the opinion of their own. This is shown in their long-withstanding edit history. One example: "SoapCentral and twitter are allowed cuz I said so. If you don't like it tough beans". And when they reverted my original attempt, all they could say was "here we go, much better". So it shows this user is not for following Misplaced Pages policy, or a decision made by a project they contribute to. I'm sure their intentions of the over-all are good, but their execution of such over time has not shown that at all. I am merely trying to follow policy, as we're told we should, and the discussion from a project the page is associated with. Nor did the user revert any other edit done, only that done to this one page. Clearly showing ownership of an article for themselves. livelikemusic 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't own any articles, the changes are inaccurate, the cast members did not play the characters continously in 2012. The show ended in January 2012, the show picked up again in April 2013, therefore the show was not on for over a year, therefore making it the way I have it, this guy here doesn't know what he's talking about, all he is doing is causing trouble for me, all he does is complain, doesn't do much, if he doesn't like the way sumthin is he complains to this board. That's it. If he doesn't like the way things are than he shouldn't be on here. He's wasted your time on this board again for the 3rd time. I didn't do anything illegal. He always complains. P.J. (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems like it might be more fitting for Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. It appears that some sort of consensus was reached on how to deal with the dates in these articles, and there's dispute right now taht Soapfan2013's edits aren't matching up with that consensus. DRN is probably your best place to settle this right now. only (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And, Soapfan2013, you're getting a little close to commit personal attacks here with your commentary on livelikemusic. Please be careful and mindful of how you respond to others. only (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What Only said sounds like a plan to me. And for the record, LLM, Soapfan2013's Twitter justification was listed on General Hospital's page, not One Life to Live's. Erpert 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Only:, they've personally attacked me before and were warned by an Admin to not do so, or that'd result an an automatic ban upon them. And the discussion was one calendar year, so for the point to be made, the show would've needed to return in 2014 to make the one-calendar year. But since it went off in 2012 and came back in 2013, it came back within on calendar year. And I've done a lot for this community, so to personally attack is completely unfair and completely defaming me as a person, and is libelous. I'm not going to be sorry for trying to upload Wiki policy and consensus, which last time I checked, is what this website runs upon. livelikemusic 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Look, here's the deal, this is the way my mind works alright? Look I see 1993-2013 and I automatically think that the actress has played the character for 20 years straight, but when I see 1993-2012, 2013, I know that she was off for a year, that's the way my mind works, that's the way it actually happend, I read those links that he posted and I saw nuthin that says I shouldn't do that, Hey I'm just tryin to be accurate here folks, no disrespect attended. P.J. (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not run on how your mind works, though. It runs on basic consensus and policy. We cannot assume what a viewer may or may not know. Consensus reached says we wait one-calendar year. The series ended in 2012 and returned for one more season in 2013, therefore coming back within a one-calendar year. And your reverts also defy WP:YEAR. livelikemusic 19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Look Livelike, the show ended on January 13, 2012, the show reboot started on April 29, 2013, which is over than 1 calender year. January 13, 2012-January 13, 2013 is one calender year. April 29, 2013 is over that calender year. Do you see what I'm saying? So therefore it should be 2012, 2013. P.J. (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Decided per the soap consensus is that one calendar year goes from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. That one be one calendar year of 2012 to 2013. If the show came back in 2014, what you're saying would be right. livelikemusic 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, guys, this is a discussion to be having at the article's talk page, the talk page of the SOAP project, or at DRN. It's great conversation is now starting rather than just comments in edit summaries, but I'm going to have to ask you guys to move it somewhere more appropriate. only (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I still believe this user's conduct should be looked at, as they're still trying to go against consensus and continue to make personal attacks against me, something they've been warned against. livelikemusic 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this being closed. Nothing was resolved and this user is once again not being held accountable for their actions. livelikemusic 19:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's understandable you don't want the discussion closed. But it has been. The issues have been resolved, and the outcome was: no administrator action required, continue this elsewhere. Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude? Now might be the time. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

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

Steady edit war at aforementioned article and User:MilesMoney has confessed to being at 3RR. I propose a one week block on MilesMoney for edit warring, a battlefield stance on almost every article he touches, an inability to edit collaboratively and well, a plethora of other reasons. He's not here to edit this project in good faith.--MONGO 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Close this. It's being handled at WP:3RRN, where it turns out that Mongo and Gaijin lied about my edit comment and behavior. Mongo is out to block me using any excuse he can find. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MONGO is involved in the dispute at gun control. 2. The material that MilesMoney removed has never had consensus to be included; is only in the article due to edit warring; and has no source which connects the material to the subject of the article. He was entirely correct to remove the material. — goethean 18:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Show me edits that demonstrate my clear involvement. 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I count at least three comments on the talk page. Looks like you're involved. MilesMoney (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is already being addressed at Misplaced Pages:3RRN#User:MilesMoney_reported_by_User:Gaijin42_.28Result:_.29. Should ordinary Misplaced Pages channels fail to address this matter, then we can explore extraordinary measures. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed (vociferously) on the article talk page, and the page is now protected. – Quadell 19:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a "spirited" discussion, but a couple people are really heaping abuse on editors.......a continuous barrage of mis-characterizations of what people said and nasty accusations and villianizing built on the mis-characterizations, sarcastic insults, ad-hominem/deprecating editors approaches, while refusing to engage on the particulars, Editors should not have to endure such abuse and I've left the article for at least a breather to avoid such abuse. It's not my style to seek actions against individuals, but could somebody take a look and see if any warnings against such nastiness are merited? Again, a spirited discussion and some disagreement is to be expected, but not a barrage of abuse. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would think that your WP:IDHT is a pretty serious abuse. You literally walked away from the discussion rather than acknowledge that policy forbids undue linkage. MilesMoney (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have Miles in mind within the "couple people", but their post here is an example.North8000 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This ANI is entirely gratuitous. The article is a mess, but the issues are being dealt with in multiple venues and this appears to be no more than harassment of MilesMoney. This should be withdrawn or closed. MONGO, do the right thing and hold your fire. This just makes you look like a jackass. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, please link to the personal attack or stop making accusations.

North8000 has engaged in edit warring and ICANTHEARYOU. He has responded to simply, polite, on-topic requests for sourcing with accusations that editors are attacking him when no one is doing any such thing. He has been asked repeatedly to provide a source which connects his preferred material to the subject of the article. He has refused to do so and continued to edit war. He is editing tendentiously. No one is attacking North8000; what is happening is that he is unable argue for his position policy-wise and so he chooses to make accusations. His behavior is unacceptable. — goethean 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a current RfC -- which several editors seem not to consider. Removal of a large section before the RfC is complete is "out of process" action, and those editors who were unwilling to allow the normal WP:CONSENSUS process to work should remove themselves from the article. The only one really misbehaving here on this noticeboard is User:MilesMoney. SPECIFICO's comments above also are ill-suited to this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor If you're referring to this RfC, that's pretty heated as it is (although forum-shopping isn't the way to go either, Mongo). Erpert 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect: There was never consensus to include the Nazi material. It was added through edit warring on the part of ROG5728, North8000, Gaijin42 and other associated editors. — goethean 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Battlefield mentality of MilesMoney and a host of others, but he's by far the most disruptive. He's not entitled to 3RR...read the policy. My sole involvement as if that matters since I have never edited the article, was to find out if the article was ever any good or was a POV fork.--MONGO 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What needs to be understood here is the underlying issue - which is whether Misplaced Pages content on the Holocaust should include fringe theories - entirely unsupported by any credible historiography - which attempt to directly link Nazi Genocide with firearms regulations. The fact that the promotion of this 'theory' (which is frankly ridiculous, for multiple reasons) is being promoted on the 'gun control' article rather than in our article on the Holocaust itself is incidental. It is simply untenable for Misplaced Pages to be promoting pseudohistorical propaganda on the Holocaust - propaganda which has clearly been concocted for the purposes of swaying another debate, in another time and place. We owe a duty to our readers (and incidentally to the memory of victims of the Holocaust) not to allow this distortion of history to be presented as anything but the tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised concoction that reliable sources report it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass changes to UK addresses

Narrow Feint (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose editor whose sole contribution on Misplaced Pages is to enforce a particular address format on articles containing British addresses. I have discussed it with him on his talk page and a number of wider discussions have been held about the practice, most recently this one, but these discussions have always centred on the various merits of different formats, rather than the merits of mass enforcement of a particular format. While a small majority were in favour of the format Narrow Feint is enforcing, there has never been a consensus to make mass changes to that format. Narrow Feint has decided that the partial support for his preferred format constitutes a right to change all British addresses to that format. I do not believe such mass changes are constructive, and they are not supported by any guideline that I can find.

It is important to add that Narrow Feint has always been civil, did not continue editing while discussions were being held, and has always denied a nationalist bias and claims not to deliberately concentrate on English addresses. But nevertheless, 100% of his mainspace edits are to remove "UK" from English addresses, even allowing "UK" to remain on Scottish addresses such as in this edit .

I myself use various address formats for British addresses, including the one Narrow Feint prefers, and I am not concerned here about which format different people may favour; I simply object to mass enforcement of a particular format at the expense of others when there is no policy on Misplaced Pages to support it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This issue seems more suitable for WP:DRN. Erpert 19:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain why? As I say, this is specifically not about the merits of the various formats, it is about whether or not we are happy with mass changes from one to another. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Explain why? Sure, because it simply seems like a friendly disagreement (which is more than can be said for issues that are usually brought to this board). Have a good day. :) Erpert 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, yes, I suppose it is more civil than most. But it's been dragging on for a long time and I would like some concrete guidance on it, something I haven't found anywhere else. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the edits all be reverted? It seems that though this user is civil, their edits are not constructive. Epicgenius (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would agree. An editor making such mass changes without consensus is clearly being disruptive regardless of whether they stop specific instances when called on it. (Consider if this had been an ENGVAR, or date format or BC/BCE issue.) I'm not an admin but frankly the only thing stopping me calling for a block or topic ban is the fact that they perhaps haven't received sufficient warning yet. Discussion should of course using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary but that doesn't negate the disruption cause by the editor concerned. Ultimately if they can't achieve consensus for any specific usage which wouldn't exactly be surprising for something like this, then they will need to just let it be, regardless of their personal dislike for whatever format. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel removing my comments in violation of TPG

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

So Gamaliel is removing my comments from the BLPN board for no reason, and has done so thrice in violation of TPG, do something. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

He has now reverted my comments for a forth time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"No reason"? I've repeatedly stated in edit summaries and in talk page conversations with User:Darkness Shines that posting the full text of a copyrighted article is both unnecessary (as a link is available) and a copyright violation. Posting an entire article does not fall under fair use. As per Misplaced Pages:Copyrights:

• "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed."
• "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems."

This matter is quite clear. Gamaliel (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup - a clear breach of copyright. I suspect it might be in DS's best interest to take a Wikibreak, before he is obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)And I told you it was in quotation marks, hence quoted, hence not a fucking copyvio, got that yet? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT instructs users inserting copyrighted material in the form of quotations to follow the guideline Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, which states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The entire article surely qualifies as "extensive". Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting quotes around copied text does not auto-magically make it not a copyright violation. Especially when the work is copied in it's entirety. Roccodrift (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting quotes round it doesn't stop it from failing WP:NFCC. Copying an entire article is never going to be able to be passed off as "fair use". Link to it, or quote the relevant section. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, as it was used to make a point, and was not in an article but a talk page, and was obviously quoted and attributed, so not a copyvio by any stretch of the imagination. So admit you are wrong and self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

DS, he's not wrong. WP:NFCC#9 prohibits any use of copyrighted material in non-article space, quite apart from the main criteria WP:NFCC#3b. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Darkness, you are wrong and have been told so by a couple of people now. Go read the policy and drop this. Whether in regular quotes or in fucking quotes, it's not OK. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he should have just remove the quote then, not the fucking lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

DS, you're not on firm ground here. Let's assume you're right that Gamaliel shouldn't have removed the lot, posting a huge bit of copyrighted text is a much bigger deal than blanking a page. No one is going to bat an eye at Gamaliel while the giant threat of legal retribution by the copyright holder hangs in the air. You can quotes bits and pieces, a sentence or two really, of copyrighted text if you are discussing that quote specifically. Bob said "Blah blah blah" about this book; for example. You cannot quote entire pages. There is just no way that Gamaliel is going to be addressed at all because the issue you've brought up is so insignificant in comparison. You really should heed the advice here and back up a step.--v/r - TP 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Already did what he ought to have done, that is it so far as i am concerned. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

DS, the article covered a few unrelated topics. The least you could have done was to extract just the part relevant to Ocean Grove and Scott Rasmussen. I don't know about copyright policy, but that huge block of text was very disruptive to the discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from new user

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

See User talk:JohnCD#ELISA N. SUSIE- ME and, for background, the deleted version of User:ELISA N susie and my reply on User talk:ELISA N susie. I am inclined not to take this threat seriously, but I bring it here for others to review. JohnCD (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@ JohnCD - I support your statements on that user's talk page (now blanked), and the indefinite block. The legal threat? What possible basis for it could there be? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The user is obviously not well; I'm not sure any administrative action is needed here. LFaraone 01:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert blocked under WP:NOTHERE, which I think is appropriate. WP:Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The user erased the block notice. Should it be restored and the user blocked from editting their own talk page, perhaps? --‖ Ebyabe - General Health ‖ 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really necessary. In blanking her current userpage (which contained additional nonsense), I added {{blocked user}}, which should be good enough notice to other users that she's not going to be responsive. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bardrick amendment of allegiance field on military biographies

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

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

Bardrick has been changing the "allegiance" for military biographies of Commonwealth military figures and replacing Canada, New Zealand and Australia, etc with "British Empire".

Recognizing that during WWI and WWII there are some independence ambiguity questions for Commonwealth countries, split discussions at Talk:Arthur_Currie#Flag_of_allegiance and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#WP:MILMOS.23FLAGS_and_WWI_flags_of_Commonwealth_dominions are leading to the conclusion that allegiance field for military biographies should be the associated country. The only topic of debate appears to be whether the inclusion of a flag is a policy violation. There is thus far no one in the participating discussions, other than Bardrick, advocating for the inclusion of "British Empire" instead of the name of the various commonwealth countries.

A couple of editors have undone Bardrick's edits these are reverted. Reverts by various users with comments provided:

• Hawkeye7:
• Zawed:
• Myself (Labattblueboy)
• Abraham, B.S.:

Warning to Bardrick's talk page:

A dispute at Arthur Currie between Bardrick and myself was very close to becoming a 3RR situation as Bardick was not interesting in returning to the baseline while the issue (which would have affected a large number of articles) was discussed. I'm too closely involved at this point to undo any more of Bardrick edits as it's going nowhere.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Answer from Bardrick: There's a legitimate debate going on on this issue & the "Labattblueboy" is continually reverting the text. He has taken ownership of these articles, has an unhistorical approach to this particular issue, will not debate the matter, has come running to you as he's lost the argument on the historical case & can't take it. Bit sad really =(

Bardrick ****

User:Bardrick's response is quite unconvincing. He is engaging in edit wars but he won't make the effort to properly sign his talk messages. His indifference to consensus suggests that a block may be necessary. He has a previous edit warring block from 24 September. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Answer from Bardrick: This "Johnston" guy is on a power-trip & these threats to have other users banned (which is against Wiki policy itself) & this type of character's incessant running off trying to get you to do it for them should, I'd suggest, be ignored. These people use the term "concensus" to try to bully others into obeying small cabals they set up on Wiki, they don't like open debate based on logic & evidence, as can be seen from "Labattblueboy's" behaviour over the Currie article, & are a slightly creepy (check out the way this "Johnston" character has gone all over my history desperately looking for ammunition to try to use here) element in Misplaced Pages. It really is a bit sad =(****

Bardrick.

Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks. Other remedies may be necessary if this continues after the block. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dedicated vandal

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

Before Christmas, I was sure I changed the date Alan Turing was pardoned to 24 December. I saw someone had changed it to 23 Dec, and searched page history and found that the date was changed by this strange edit. It's 117.202.56.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have a pretty good knowledge of the wikisyntax, really taking time to mess up the page. This was, while the page was (and still is) being featured on the Main Page's "In The News" section, and the vandal edit was only first properly noticed two days later. Other users had partially undone the vandal's edit, and I just undid the rest in a pretty frustrating exercise comparing the diff to the present page, trying to avoid undoing any of the 100+ well-intended edits from the time between. I am appealing for admins to ban this user straight away – it's obviously no use warning him if he is ready to take such dedication to messing up the page, and this is probably not the first time the person behind the IP has done something like this. --hydrox (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That edit was pretty ridiculous, but I doubt s/he'll be banned for something like that. Erpert 09:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dragonron's disruptive behavior

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

User:Dragonron, despite being a new account, appears to be run by someone semi-knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages and its guidelines and has done around 3 constructive edits. However, they do so with sarcastic and plain weird comments showing in my opinion a purpose to disrupt that outshines being a constructive editor.

They have been warned in the past and responded by warning the ClueBot .

In this edit they claimed to have "edited the redirects cause the pages were moved", when by looking through their edit history clearly shows no such work.

I gave sufficient explanations for my reverts here and here .

Additionally, because they are knowledgeable about guidelines and given the recent edits by the ip 166.147.118.210 suggest to me sockpuppetry.

I frankly do not know what to do or if this is even the place to discuss this. Does such behavior constitute vandalism, a sockpuppet block or trying to ignore/work around them? Xfansd (talk)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has also requested a page protection at Misplaced Pages:RPP#List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters claiming you are the one edit warring. Bluefist 03:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware. However, I'm confident others will see the user is disruptive and bring an end to that as well. Xfansd (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

U revert me without a basis! Kuririn, Freeza, and the others were moved, no? I hate redirects, and theres no reason for using em. And we dont use "manga Viz names" per WP:DBZ. May I remind Xfansd that I opened a discussion which he wont partake in?! Check my contribs. i am not a suckpuppet, another baseless allegation this editor is the disruptive one. Dragonron (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to indef dragonron per his apparent hounding, but I'd like a second opinion on that matter. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh! Ur "hounding" claims go unsubstantiated. I am just doin mah job. Dragonron (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, calm down Dragonron. And fellas, hows about we compromise on a partial revert? 166.147.118.210 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
      • excuse me, theres no compromising with Xfansz unless he talks to either of us. I am waiting for the block, I mean, lock to expire so I can nix it up again. Dragonron (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• There are some useful edits among Dragonron's contributions, but his tone and attitude show either a lack of maturity or outright trolling. Given his tag-teaming with the 166.147 IPs as noted above, on Talk:Bleach (anime) and here, plus his (and their) obvious experience with Misplaced Pages, I find the sockpuppetry allegations likely. That puts me into the "trolling" camp. That said, I believe Xfansd misunderstood the "edited the redirects" edit summary: Dragonron changed the {{main}} targets from redirects to the corresponding articles themselves; I expect that's what the edit summary refers to. Huon (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • THANK U! Finally someone who understands wut I was doing. Huon, ur wrong on one thing: I dont resort to suckpuppetry. Trust me. Now, Mark or whoever, revert back to the version without redirects please. Dragonron (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a short block to Dragonron for WP:BATTLE. Let's hope that ends this mess and after the block there is more constructive engagement with other editors. If not, Mark's suggestion of an indef is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lone Gunmen

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

This morning I began edits to The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series) in an effort to expand sections and provide citations where there previously were none. Later in the day before my edits were completed, User:GSK and User:Grapple_X showed and began reverting and section blanking before I had the proper time to condense the new information and ensure the citations were all good.

Reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=588012439&oldid=588009013 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587992610&oldid=587992402 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587992402&oldid=587992337 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Lone_Gunmen_%28TV_series%29&diff=587980735&oldid=587958976

Their section blanking also lead to them blanking previously added subsections of the article which were never cited nor did I add. I also previously warned both users on the talk page that they were being unconstructive and vandalizing the articles content, I was completely ignored. Also the information they have section blanked is some of the same content from The Lone Gunmen about where the show gets its original name, except my version was properly cited. I would appreciate it if all editors here could sit down and have a rational discussion with Misplaced Pages administrative oversight in which all of these issues are resolved/discussed. Thank you. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A discussion at ANEW did not go in the IP's favor, so I guess they thought it was necessary to come here instead. I think this is borderline WP:HOUNDING. GSK ✉ ✓ 04:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

None of this is in retaliation at all, if you could all slow down a second and give me a time to properly respond. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you drop this immediately: I've already warned you about forum-shopping, and if you continue you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked, since I've grown tired of seeing the word "liar" in the IP's posts. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP 219.116.115.176, again...

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

IP 219.116.115.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the subject of this ANI-report from three months ago, a report that resulted in a block, is back again, continuing the same pattern of highly disruptive, and very strange edits, edits that IMHO show a clear lack of competence. The IP, which geolocates to Japan and makes many edit summaries in Japanese, edits both articles and other users' talk pages, reverts many of their own edits with edit summaries that claim they're reverting vandalism, creates redirects, adds and removes images, and generally just plays around, without contributing anything worthwhile to the project (I could add diffs but a look at the IP's list of contributions should be enough...). The IP has overnight (from my perspective, i.e. European time) received a full set of warnings, up to and including a final warning for vandalism, but IMHO the lack of competence, and resulting disruption, warrants more than just a short block for vandalism. Thomas.W 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, wow. Some of his edits are....OK? His global contributions are interesting - he's actually performing this exact same behavior over at least a dozen other Wikis (with three blocks on ja-wiki and one on commons). I am of agreement that this editor, while he might mean well, is simply too incompetent to be allowed to edit. I'm blocking for three months, with the hope that he either stays away from Misplaced Pages in the future, or starts trying to actually communicate with people. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Brilliantly weird indeed. I love the self-reverts with accusation of vandalism. Maybe we should make it an administrator so it will block itself. Zero 11:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And it's getting even weirder after the block, with the IP now making nonsense-edits on their own talk page, and then self-reverting with an edit summary saying "reverting vandalism"... Thomas.W 21:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bengali people

User:Amitabho, is repeatedly inserting a copy vio image in the article despite being properly explained about the copyright problems of the image in the talk page. DIFFS of inserting the image: ,, , , , ,

The image has been nominated for deletion in the commons. Moreover, the user has also uploaded some non-free images with missing info like this one, using wrong licenses falsely claiming that they are in public domain per FOP just to use those images as a source in the collage. Since the user continues with his disruptive editing, I thought to report him here.--Zayeem 13:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified User:Amitabho. NativeForeigner 17:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kmzayeem: I probably missed it but have you communicated with him? I didn't see it on his talk page or on the article talk page but I sure could have missed it. A diff please? JodyB _talk 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have taken every reasonable step in regard to the aforementioned image. There should be no infringing material remaining. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! JodyB _talk 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You as well. May I ask that both this incident and the deletion request at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bengali_collage.png both be closed, considering the resolution of this dispute's circumstances? Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

JodyB, take a look at this thread on the article talk page, I've tried my best to explain the problems, some other editors have also raised their concerns about the image.--Zayeem 15:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor Exhibiting Tendentious Behavior/Editing

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

User:WLRoss has been exhibiting tendentious behavior and editing regarding the articles of Anthony Johnson and John Punch. I will layout multiple examples of how User:WLRoss as been gaming the system, ignoring dispute resolution, violating consensus of dispute resolution, and demonstrating tendentious behavior/editing over the last few months as described by WikiPedia:TEND.

Scoobydunk (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Offensive/Controversial Advertisement (possible hacking?)

I have much trouble believing that this advertisement http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Reported_cost_and_schedule_issues is legitimately from Misplaced Pages. The animated GIF purports to be an NRA ad, showing a dark-faced figure in a hoodie. The viewer is apparently holding a gun, and the text reads "DEFEND YOURSELF FROM THE INTRUDER AND WIN A FREE GIFTCARD FROM THE NATIONAL IFLE ASSOCIATION". The link on the image is to the article on the NRA; there is no link to any Webpage from which any actual product could be acquired. The image appears in a box headed "Promoted Content" with text below the image reading "Seeing ads? Wikimedia is experimenting with a new ad program. Add your thoughts here. " There is a link to https://test2.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new .

The content has appeared on multiple computers that I have checked, including an Andriod device and from Tor, so I do not believe I have been hacked. I have been unable to locate any code in the Wiki markup that generates the ad. The ad does not appear in the previous version of the page, but the difference shown in the page history does not appear to generate the content. Furthermore, using the preview button when editing the page does not generate the ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDnar (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! What syphilitic pus-brained idiot thought this was a good idea? I mean the candy in hand and hoody is 'brilliant'? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif

<tr> <td align="center" colspan="2"><a href="/National_Rifle_Association" title="National Rifle Association"><img alt="Promoted icon finnish.gif" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Promoted_icon_finnish.gif" width="300" height="300" /></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Seeing ads? Wikimedia is experimenting with a new ad program. <a class="external text" href="https://test2.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Advertising_on_Wikipedia&action=edit&section=new">Add your thoughts here.</a></td> </tr> Shenme (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Guys, chill out. Scroll up to the section titled "Advertising" above and you will see a full explanation on what happened. In the meantime, jumping to conclusions like "it must have been a hack!" are not particularly helpful. Instead, search for where the content is coming from. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Bar chart}} this time, which has already been reverted and protected --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Turns out abuse filter 600 did detect this, but was configured incorrectly and didn't block it. The page in question just needed to be purged, it looks like. The template was reverted a while back. (The filter is now correctly configured.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. I checked the bar graph page, but didn't see the "ad", hence my concern about possible hacking, since there appeared to be no generating code. I didn't realize that templates were cached (although in retrospect, the large number of templates Misplaced Pages uses would make that a necessary performance optimization.)—Dr. D'nar (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Just waiting on the Job Queue to flush all the translucations --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:SuzanneTXC

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

So I was patrolling the new users log and clicked on this user. It seemed legit until I saw the bit about 'All Natural Testosterone Booster'. (see for yourself). I'm edgy about sending it to the CSD Line and have no idea about where to send a page that smells but seemingly can't be CSD'd so I've dashed here.

Anyone who can shed light on this? MM (Report findings) 20:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, I've deleted it as G11/spam. LFaraone 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:SALebato FBI

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

User:SALebato FBI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a bit worried about this new user. So far I have not blocked him/her but have asked them to find a new username. Any comments? Deb (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked them for creating attack pages without sources.--v/r - TP 21:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:I AM NO TAX BOY (same editor with two same username accounts)

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

This seems to be a an obvious case of WP:DUCK but it's seems more complicated than it should be. Two different accounts with the same username, firstly User:Ι ΑΜ ΝΟ ΤΑΧ ΒΟΥ created at 20:25, December 28, 2013 (see ) and User:I AM NO TAX BOY created at 20:27, December 28, 2013 (see ) have been edit warring and making some disruptive edits at various articles. At first glance both of these look as if they are one single account but it looks like a very unique type of MediaWiki glitch where there are two different accounts with one single and exact username. Can an Administrator look into this and see what's going on here ? ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Any sources? I AM NO TAX BOY (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

One has username starting with English letter I and other has username starting with greek letter iota. Clever malicious move though. :) Hitro talk 21:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The response on their talk leads me to conclude they aren't here to clear the AfC backlog. Ritchie333 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• From the helpful answer given by Hitro and Ritchie, it looks it was a spoof attempt by the person to create two same named different accounts only for disruption/vandalism. And both the accounts have now been blocked, so I believe the situation is resolved and this thread can now be closed. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I am feeling intimitated by Yambaram

For around ten hours ago, Yambaram reinserted my discussions att the talk page, claiming that "you're not allowed to blank your talk page, see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE archive it properly or you". Then he wrote a comment saying that:

Deleting material and POV-editing

I'm writing you this warning message because as you may or may not know, a talk page needs to be archived properly, not deleted. Repeated violation of WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE will lead to you being blocked.

The bolded text is the title of the section. His two other edits under that period were removing "and POV-editing" and signed his comment.

I responded him by pointing to Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. He then said that he did not know about that. Personally, before suggesting to others that they are violating a policy and linking to it, and issuing threats about getting blocked, I would read very carefully about the policies. Then you would most likely find Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments. However, while I accept that he did not know about the user talk page-policy, I believe he sees it as a badge of shame and wants me to keep it. While would he otherwise reinsert all discussions except the bot messages? I think his response shows even more clearly that this is his agenda:

Well, to be honest I actually didn't know of that, so please do as you wish now. The fact that you choose to consistently delete posts from your talk page instead of archiving the which is Misplaced Pages policy's "preferred" option means a lot, as there must be a reason behind it. What are you hiding? You have exposed your POV-pushing editing style everywhere, and other editors have told you about it already. Anyway, I can only guess how long this comment will stay before it gets removed too. -Yambaram (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of accepting that his edits and claims were wrong, he keeps on with his intimidating attacks against me. I of course find it very unpleasing and hopes it will stop, which seem to be impossible without someone pointing out to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. And the focus should be on the articles, not me. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are allowed to delete content from your user page through normal editing. It is still available through the talk page history. WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE is referring to the admin delete tool. Admins cannot delete user talk pages which would remove the page history from public view. That's different from removing it through editing.--v/r - TP 02:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, TP - the wording seems clear that it refers to removing the content without copying it to an archive for easy access. That said, it is a guideline, rather than a policy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's also talking about article talk pages. The next section down says "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."--v/r - TP 14:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"For around ten hours ago," ... Wat? CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a language barrier. Not everyone speaks English as a first language. Please don't gripe over their grammar.--v/r - TP 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's a language barrier that person should edit the Misplaced Pages for the languages they can speak fluently, so yes I will "gripe over their grammar". In this case it isn't that bad so I was just asking for clarification. CombatWombat42 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" not just "people who speak English well". Take your snobby ass somewhere else if you can't handle other cultures editing this encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 03:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I know that I did not break any policy. What I see as the problem is Yambaram's behaviour. It must stop.

Swedish is my first language. This type of wording is normal. It gives around 8.5 million hits on Google. But please lets focus on the topic. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore him. No administrator is going to act on his word alone and we all know the applicable policy.--v/r - TP 03:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan edit war

I'm having issues trying to figure out what to do in response to an edit war that's on-going at Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and South Asian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The debate is centered on what part of Asia to classify Afghanistan as, and whether the article should say South Asia then Central Asia or Central Asia then South Asia (which seems a little silly to me to debate but....whatever).

The involved users:

• Nikhilmn2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Feysalafghan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Feysalafghan and Smsarmad have dueling 3RR reports at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Feysalafghan_reported_by_User:Smsarmad_(Result: ) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Smsarmad reported by User:Feysalafghan (Result: ) (though this one is barely a report since it's not formatted at all properly).

I'm not entirely sure what to do with the reports and the situations so would appreciate other admins' insights. Feysalafghan seems to be committed the most editing warring infractions here, and seems to have some near personal attack concerns in calling other users "non-adults" on the 3RR report and in this talk page message, so I'm tempted to block him.

Should the page be protected? Should blocks be implemented on any of these users? I'm just not able to wrap my mind around a proper response so I'm seeking other input. And, please, any admin is welcome to take any actions they feel is appropriate here without consulting with me first. Thanks in advance, only (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocks all around, first off. We can determine who is right later, which isn't an exemption to edit warring so it's not important to determine it first. The rest is a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page but it's an easy answer. Refer to it like the sources do. If 70% of them say one thing and 30% say another, say both but say which one is used more, ect.--v/r - TP 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, invoke the Arbcom sanctions while you block them.--v/r - TP 02:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about this arbitration case nor the enforcement of it. Can someone who's more familiar with it please look into this edit war and take action? Thanks, only (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much time has passed since the warring at this point, so I've issued a warning to Feysalafghan about the Arbcom restrictions. Next time can be a block.--v/r - TP 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• For the convenience for those who like to take any administrative action against me: I admit/realize that I edit warred and if I was an admin I would have blocked myself, so if I am blocked I would not complain or request an unblock regardless of whether an administrative action is taken against other users or not. So if anyone is confused whether I should be blocked or not please block me as I am unable to edit anyway with the sword swinging over my head that whether I will be blocked or not. -- SMS 12:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Threatening editor

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

Check out this diff, I caught it while perusing recent changes. This would appear to be a threat of one anonymous user to another. I'm not sure how seriously to take the threat; it doesn't really give a specific violent act threat, but it's indicative. Red Phoenix _{remember the past...} 04:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not an anonymous editor, was an account with the threat. Indefblocked with hardblock activated. Daniel (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There was also the IP before that edit, but it wasn't quite as severe. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, Daniel, that is an IP address (specifically an IPv6 address), unless I'm way sleepier than I think I am. Could you please give it a non-indefinite block instead? — PinkAmpers& 05:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • That's new to me, thanks for the headsup User:PinkAmpersand. Reduced to 72 hours. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:O'Dea

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

User:O'Dea whom i have never heard of came over to the 2014 in article for the United States that i have for the last 4 years and with some 2000 good edits (such as 2011 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2011_in_the_United_States, 2012 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2012_in_the_United_States, 2013 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2013_in_the_United_States, and 2014 in the United States https://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=2014_in_the_United_States) tirelessly worked on and began to vandalize the page when i tried to stop him he got my ip address blocked (i normally never bother to spend the time to log in so my address is 68.231.15.56 (my old ip address was 70.162.171.210 but my ip carrier changed it)) then he used my block to again vandalize the page. I have never heard of this user he suddenly appeared a few days ago and began wholesale vandalism of the this page 2014 in the United States - he made a few idiotic statements about why he thought he should do what he was doing and my reverts and continued to vandalize the page as in here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_in_the_United_States&diff=588164742&oldid=588153015 --S-d n r (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

when i disagreed and reverted his vandalism he threatened me with block and later got an admin to do so--S-d n r (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The question of whether this user ever heard of me is irrelevant. That goes both ways; it is meaningless.
• It is incorrect to claim that I had him blocked. He may inspect my edit history to confirm this; he will not find me initiating action against him. The block was an independent initiative by an administrator.
• This user, S-d n r, performed disruptive edits at 2014 in the United States under the IP identity 68.231.15.56. He, the IP editor, was blocked from editing for these actions today. I was not involved in that block, but I did warn him a few days ago that his behaviour could lead to it.
• He listed events which will occur in 2015 in the 2014 article.
• He formatted edits in violation of WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK.
• He violated WP:Civil on my talk page and in edit summaries by making unfounded accusations of disruption and vandalism, and using foul language.
• He makes false claims about the content of Misplaced Pages policies to support his actions.
• Today's block is not his first. He was blocked in the past because of his behaviours.
• In toto, he is belligerent, resentful, disruptive, and operates a policy of angry edit reversions without care for the policies he violates. — O'Dea (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

quote "he is belligerent" i guess i must be so because you say so

quote "He makes false claims about the content of Misplaced Pages policies to support his actions" i have made little of claims because i have had to endlessly defend agains datelinking issues in the past and was told in no uncertain terms to just revert such wrongheaded activities - the bad user quotes both WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK neither of which apply to year in articles which are for the millionth time i have to state "INSTRINSICALLY DATE ORIENTED WORKS AND ARE THEREBY EXEMPT"--S-d n r (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• OP blocked for edit warring per their admission and block evasion. Tiderolls 06:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

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

Hi, could someone please block user Nehapant19. Removing my article deletion nominaton and vandalising 100 crore club article for a long time.--Joyceevan (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky and "Trivia"

Johnny Squeaky seems to feel that many sections (especially "In popular culture" sections) should instead be labelled with the less precise/less descriptive "Trivia". Some of these sections do need to be cleaned up (often as indiscriminate listing of occurrences under WP:IPC). Numerous discussions with him have demonstrated what I believe is a clear consensus against these changes, after much name calling and labeling of much of the discussion as "threats" and "bullying". SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

First, you have *not* had "numerous" discussions with me on this subject. Yes, you have threatened to have me blocked, you have threatened to bring me up on charges here, but discussion? Nope, you have never attempted to engaged me in quality meaningful discussion on any Talk Page on this subject, in a friendly way.

Now back on subject, "Trivia" is not "less precise/less descriptive", "In Popular Culture" is non-descriptive and inaccurate, simply a "more polite" synonym. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring in defense of his preferred version resulted in locking an article and a warning and a block. SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not so, I do not like "edit waring" at all, and usually end up losing to powerful editors with connections. But the fact is, "In Popular Culture" is a disingenuous term for the more accurate "Trivia", used to avoid the "stigma" of calling trivia what it is. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(Additionally, but a bit off topic, I cautioned him against making repeated unsubstantiated claims that another editor was using socks. Squeaky was later identified as using a sock.) SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is off topic and not the subject of this discussion. You comment is inappropriate, and essentially "bad mouthing" as it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Shame on you, especially since you just accused *me* of threats and name calling. Wow. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

With this, I'm done. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "edit waring" about this, but serious discussion about what is "trivia" and what is "In Popular Culture" is not going on. Factually, much of what is titled "In Popular Culture" is in fact trivia, and the Leona Helmsley article is a perfect example: The section titled "In Popular Culture" is clearly a random list of "factoids", otherwise known as "trivia", and it should be honestly labeled and tagged as such. The reason that people tend to lable "trivia" as "In Popular Culture" is that "trivia" is discouraged. But if "In Popular Culture" is used as a synonym to get around proper and honest ladling of trivia as "trivia", is this correct? Isn't that just a dishonest subterfuge? Seriously, I'm not the one trying to include "discouraged" content, and insisting on mislabeling it as something that it is not. If certain editors don't like "trivia", perhaps they should work it into the article or get rid of it, not badmouth me for bringing some honesty to the subject. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is not what to call the sections, but whether or not there is a consensus that you do not hear and are editing against. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is *exactly* what to call sections: If it's trivia, the section should be called "Trivia" and tagged with the "trivia" tag. And as to "consensus", you, sir, have exactly zero discussions on the article pages you have started "edit wars" with me on this subject that show any "consensus" for your point of view. It's simply amazing to read you keep bringing up "consensus" for this article or that when in fact you have none. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, it takes *two* to "edit war", and User:SummerPhD seems to enjoy following me around Misplaced Pages and starting them. Some might call this an obsession, other might call it "stalking", I call it annoying and unproductive. User:SummerPhD likes to make threats and bring things up here, but has *NEVER* engaged me politely on a Talk Page to discuss my edits. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Squeaky, you know from experience that a single editor can edit war against several other editors who only revert once or twice. It doesn't always take two to edit war. As a matter of fact, that's exactly the sort of behavior that led to you being blocked in October. And yet you continue this tendentious editing pattern, with all the bolds and asterisks and italics, insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Perhaps it is time for a topic ban for you on "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

JS, can you refrain from inserting your comments in to the middle of someone elses? Such discussion style tends to confuse more than it helps, particularly when the discussion grows long with multiple replies as we would frequently expect at ANI. Also SPhD is correct this discussion should have nothing to do with what to call the sections. That's a WP:Content dispute so not something that would be dealt with at ANI but instead via one of the methods outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. The actions of participants in that content dispute can of course be scrutinised (and this will be their conduct, in other words largely seperate from whether people agree or disagree with the end result of their actions). I haven't looked enough at any actions here to comment specifically, but as I said a few sections above, someone who repeatedly make mass changes to a large number of articles when it's clear that they lack any sort of consensus for said changes is almost definitely behaving WP:Disruptively and should resonably be expected to be blocked or topic banned or both. Others shouldn't edit war over such changes, but reversion of them a single time will generally be acceptable per WP:BRD. If the person keeps making those changes, thats when the block or topic ban starts to come in. As for the sockpuppet issue, while it's largely an aside and people's previous behaviour shouldn't always be brought up particularly when it's largely irrelevant, you also cannot resonably expect your previous behaviour to be always ignored, even if it's largely distinct from any current problems. Definitely mentioning that someone has been proven to have violated WP:SOCK in the past if that claim is correct, is quite different from someone repeatedly making unsubtaniated claims of sockpuppetry. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As explained previously (more than once), it took several to edit war: you and the several editors you reverted who disagreed with you. When you take actions that generate warnings and see all warnings as uncivil threat, you will see lots of "uncivil threats" (from lots of editors). To my tired eyes, all of my comments on your talk page, my talk page and various article talk pages seem to be civil. That you and I have repeatedly disagreed on this topic does not mean that I have not engaged you politely or discussed the issue. As you see me as part of the cabal of thugs with connections to all of the right editors out to get you, there is no way that I could possibly convince you otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Summer, I'm not here to discuss your bullying (see your off-topic discussion above), nor get off into railroading on the subject of "edit waring". As you have the "connections", you can and will have me blocked if you choose to do so, I accept that. The real subject here is Trivia.

The fact is, "consensus" about trivia in one article, one context, does not extend across all articles and all contexts. Saying, as you have, that there is "consensus" Misplaced Pages-wide that "Trivia" will not be used is misleading and untrue. The fact is, "Trivia" is no more (or less) than "discouraged" as clearly supported by the fact that a "trivia" tag exists. The issue is honesty. The issue is not labeling trivia as "In Popular Culture" when it is more accurately described as "trivia". The issue is that "In Popular Culture" is in many (not all) cases a disingenuous synonym for "Trivia", used for the sake of appearances to make it look more serious, when it's just trivia.

It's clear you folks don't really want to have meaningful discussion about this, but would rather bully your view. That's fine, it doesn't reflect negatively on me, I'm ready to have friendly discussion, within the context of each article as to the appropriateness withing the context of that article (as it the proper way to do it). But I know that you folks have already made up your mind to block me, so why not just do it and get it out of the way? Since you folks don't seem to want to engage in actual discussion of what is the real subject here, it's pointless for me to waste more time on it. And it's really too bad, railroading might "feel good" in a narcissistic way, but it really is not productive. =//= Johnny Squeaky 08:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I have not said that "Trivia" will be used, this discussion is about whether or not you are hearing the consensus repeatedly demonstrated that sections about subjects' impact on popular culture are called "In popular culture" and are editing against that consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What view? I haven't expressed an opinion on what the section should be called and frankly I haven't thought about it enough to care. As I indicated in my first response, if you think that anyone opposed to your actions is automatically opposed to your idea, then you clearly don't understand how wikipedia works and that's your problem and not going to help you achieve consensus. And I don't know your history, but it sounds like you've been to ANI before so you should have known before my reply if not definitely after my reply, that ANI is not the place to engage in such a discussion.

If you want to engage in discussion on the subject, you should start such a centralised discussion in an appropriate place rather than trying to change articles enmass hoping no one will notice and then accusing people of being uncivil or blaming them for following you when they object. But such a discussion will need to take place before your edits, and if you keep carrying out your edits while the discussion is taking place or before you have consensus, you shouldn't be surprised if people get too distracted or just don't bother to discuss the issue. In fact, while a localised consensus may not necessarily speak to a wider consensus, if you have a localised consensus against your actions that's an even bigger sign you need to either seek such a wider consensus for them or give up on your edits, not move on to some other article which you think may be unwatched and try your luck.

In other words, if anyone is trying to railroad something, it clearly isn't the other participants. And BTW, you're wrong about the other thing as well. As I said, I know little of your history. Sorry to say, what I've seen hasn't given me reason to think you being blocked would be a great loss to wikipedia, but by the same token I also haven't seen enough to make me think wikipedia would be better off with your blocked. (Unlike say the editor discussed in the the topic below who from the little I've seen we probably would be better of losing. Although I'm by no means blaming the admins involved for not indefing them yet.) All I want is for you to stop your edits and either achieve consensus for them and continue or not do so and don't repeat them. In either case, I would hope you'd then go on to make great contributions to wikipedia, in which case I'd be happy you weren't blocked. Of course if you continue to make mass changes without consensus then I can't help calling for a topic ban or block, but it's not something I want to happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment While "In popular culture" sections do often include trivia, they equally often include commentary about the influence or the culture impact of a work or person which is of encyclopedic value. Ideally our aim should be to reduce or remove the trivia while leaving in the encylopedic stuff, so changing the titles of these sections is counter-productive: i) it doesn't address the presence of trivia itself; ii) naming these sections "trivia" actually encourages the addition of more trivia! If Johnny really wants to be part of the solution in tackling trivia on Misplaced Pages then he needs to realize that renaming these sections is not helping. I think a ban from retitling trivia/popular culture sections is the order of the day. Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  Jonny knows perfectly well that this has been going on for over two years with at least six editors repeatedly stating that he does not have consensus to add trivia tags. The following are a few from this year. Also socking and constantly edit warring . He goes by the name of Donny Squeaky and Ronny Squeaky and many other titles. He is not listening or hearing other editors and shows no desire to take on board what any one else says after dozens of repeated efforts. I'm not sure what point there is in a topic ban. This isn't about trivia, this about not respecting the guidelines of the community and the inability to work as part of a group. He was blocked again until Dec 25 and the minute it comes off he starts on the same "I can't hear you" routine. He is a patently disruptive editor who needs an indefinite ban. Span (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to Jonny Squeaky's plea that no editors want to enter into 'proper discussion' here is one of the many attempts, after which he carried on regardless. (also linked above) Span (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban of Squeaky changing any section heading to 'trivia' and adding any trivia tags would stop the immediate problem which from what I've read mostly relates to this. If the problem extends to discussion in this area, then the topic ban could likewise be extended to discussion in this area. It's possible Squeaky would then repeat the poor behaviour in other areas or simply not respect the topic ban, such behaviour would likely lead to an indef block or community ban if it continues. On the other hand, there may be merit to simply blocking now. I was simply wanting to point out that if an editor refuses to either accept the community consensus or accept the need for consensus in a specific area or is otherwise making problems in a specific area, they can be told to leave that area in the hope (vain or not) that they will be less problematic in other areas (it helps if they're already demonstrated this which I'm not sure is the case here). Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnny has a long history of 1) changing section headings (mostly IPC, but also others) to "Trivia" 2) edit-warring with the multiple people who revert his edits 3) accusing everyone who disagrees with him of offenses ranging from COI to sockpuppetry, with little to no supporting evidence 4) alternately removing attempts at discussion from his talk page, or going on rants that do not serve to advance any understanding. The edit-warring and battleground behaviours also extend beyond the "Trivia" issue, as for example in this discussion. Perhaps a 1RR restriction would be helpful, although the "discussion" tactics also need to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Trivia must be determined *article by article* unless *UNLESS* there is a policy statement from the Wikilords that "trivia" is unlawful. That "In Popular Culture" is OK as a synonym for "trivia" for *one* article does not propagate to all. Folks are trying to say because it was decided for X article, it's automatically good for all, and this is just a silly idea. Context is important. And again, thanks guys for making this "personal" when it's not. It just shows the kind if bias that develops with the "in crowd", and why Misplaced Pages is regularly trashed in the media. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• While I'll agree that SummerPhD has a tendency to be an aggressively creepy WikiStalker, you should probably read WP:HTRIVIA more carefully, and when in doubt, post a note on the talk page letting other users comment on your proposed changes. Some people are sensitive about their indiscriminate triviacruft "in popular culture" sections--personally, I like to get rid of them with the finesse of a surgeon doing brain surgery with a shovel. But exercise a little good sense, make the effort at being transparent about your intentions and what you propose to do on the talk page (most of them aren't even read...after a week, no response, take it as a tacit approval. if your proposal is resisted, kick rocks for a few weeks be patient and raise the issue again in a month and maybe the consensus will change), and take care of it according to WP:HTRIVIA. Misplaced Pages doesn't benefit from "trivia" unless it has an encyclopaedic purpose that elaborates on the meaning of the subject. Most trivia is bullshit that should be deleted. However, you're acting a little too much like a cowboy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Again, this is about working with Misplaced Pages guidelines and listening to other editors. Accusations of conspiracy and backscratching WikiLords abound. This is nothing to do with an 'in crowd'. Span (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not an admin, but my experiences with Johnny suggest an attitude of WP:IDHT and a lack of interest in abiding by consensus if he feels he knows better. He also has what I'd consider a non-helpful though admittedly technically non-actionable pattern of simply blanking his Talk page which, coupled with his editing patterns, suggest to me that he's not so much interested in collaborating with his fellow editors as trying to force through his own views. Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree that a topic ban seems a reasonable course of action if Johnny is unwilling to acknowledge any wrongdoing and/or agree to make more of an effort to procure consensus for his changes. I led what I would call an overly-detailed discussion on the subject on one article (the specific article escapes me at present) to ensure that Johnny's changes didn't have consensus, only to have him disregard the findings in any case (I believe that led to a block). DonIago (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, here's two instances of Johnny being blocked for edit-warring: , . The second one relates to the discussion I felt we shouldn't have needed to have at Talk:Soylent Green. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

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

In order to resolve the issues discussed above, I propose the following restriction, appealable to the community: Johnny Squeaky cannot change any section heading to "Trivia". He is further to observe a one-revert rule in all situations.

• Support as proposer. Ping SummerPhD, Johnny Squeaky, , Cullen Nil Einne, Betty Logan, Span, ColonelHenry, DonIago. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support unless Johnny is willing to a) acknowledge that he has been making edits without consensus and b) agree that he will not make any further edits of this nature without beginning an appropriate dialogue first (I'd define appropriate as, at minimum, a Talk page conversation that involves at least two additional editors, and ideally a project page conversation). DonIago (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sensible proposal. I'd also add that "Trivia" is such a bad section header because it is s cheaply unencyclopaedic. I echo DonIago in admonishing Johnny to always to attempt consensus before such potentially problematic edits, first on the talk page and reaching out to relevant project pages...use the one-week rule as I mentioned above. If trivia can't be incorporated in the article properly, it should be removed. But reckless antics such as this do nothing to further dialogue regarding the merits of such content. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - A useful restriction, given this editor's continued behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support a ban on any edits to do with 'popular culture' and 'trivia' though I doubt it with make him less deaf to others. Behaviour with socks, edit warring and conspiracy accusations suggests to me that the editor neither understands / agrees with the basic way WP works. Span (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on long enough, and a topic ban is worth trying before a block. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support It is clearly time for these restrictions. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support After looking at this user's edit history and behavior in the above discussion, this seems to be the only solution that might be workable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that we seem to have a consensus, and I'm not aware of any admins having an issue with this proposal (they haven't said anything?), and I'd like to see this acted on rather than archived due to inactivity, I guess I'm both bouncing this and hoping that we can move it forward. I apologize if I'm out of line here. DonIago (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Serious personal attack against a teenager

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

This is a serious personal attack against an editor. I want to draw AN's attention as Soham is a youngster (most probably 14 years old). Some sites including Facebook give special attention in such cases.Tito☸Dutta 10:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that editors who make those sort of personal attacks deserve to be blocked, but I fear the community as a whole disagrees with me. StAnselm (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• @StAnselm: I completely agree with you. In addition, I just discovered, I don't know how we protect under 18 editors here in Misplaced Pages. Do we have any special page? If we have please direct me to that page. If it becomes irrelevant here, you may post at my talk page too. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 10:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC) This seems to be the page Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors Tito☸Dutta 10:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)May I point to the unblock request made by this editor the last time they were blocked. Editors should not have to put up with this sort of abuse.Flat Out let's discuss it 10:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to pontificate about child protection, it might be a good idea to avoid speculating about the ages of other Wikipedians.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes I am 15, I have no reservations about revealing my age here. I don't know how to react. Most probably I'll go into retirement, a decision I've been toying around lately. I have requested for this editor to be blocked by the last blocking admin on grounds of personal attack here. Soham 10:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked for a week (again). However, things are different now, and it is extremely likely that a repeat of the attack on you would result in them being indefinitely blocked. My suggestion would be to ignore the issue and let others deal with it. Looking for the positive side of this incident, I'm afraid that one encounters out-of-the-blue nonsense like this in real life as well, although probably in an entirely different form, and it is important to deal with stuff like this by pretending to be unaffected. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And I hate to say it, but this is one of the great failings of Misplaced Pages. Surely he should have been blocked for more than a week. Aren't blocks supposed to escalate if editors haven't learned their lessons? But I fear we have developed a culture in which personal attacks and abusive language are regarded as normal. StAnselm (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In his last block request he says " I am ordering you, whoever who blocked me, unblock or i'll find u and beat you up in front of your mother." That block was also for one week and obviously didn't do the trick. This block should be extended to a month at least, if not indefinitely. Nformation 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about your age and saying things like "probably I'll go into retirement" make me think you are just whining for attention(Ironically something teenagers are known for). To me you are starting to sound like a WP:DIVA CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor is nothing but a bully, pure and simple. The concept of escalating blocks means the block must be in line with the escalation process, as this editor clearly doesn't get that their online abuse towards others is not acceptable on the project ES&L 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indef Block - a week is not enough and now we have testimony that uncivil behavior chases editors away. I would also support a ban- MrX 14:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - since when do we go easy on such people? Deb (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Barring an extremely sincere and profuse apology, yea, this user has to be shown the block door. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Should be indeffed, not here to build an encyclopaedia and incapable of getting along with others. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked Indef. I don't get why everybody is pussyfooting around here, had I seen that unblock request above I would have indeffed then, that attack is inexcuseable (although I would say the age of the person being attacked, or the attacker for that matter, is irelevant.)--Jac16888 14:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If we care about an editors age (I could not possibly care less personally), we need to treat it like we would any other fact here on Misplaced Pages, we would need proof. Otherwise every time someone gets their feeling hurt or wants to win an argument they could just say "I'm under age, you should be more harsh to this guy." CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. Jac16888 has hit the nail on the head with his reasoning. I will say that Soham's old username showed his age, but agree that it is irrelevant; what is relevant is that he is an enthusiastic young editor who I'm seen acting more maturely than people three times his age. CombatWombat, please shut up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Probable sock

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

It appears that Anice has now started socking, RoshniBaby (talk · contribs) & Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AniceMathew--Jac16888 14:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This edit is pretty incriminating.  Looks like a duck to me. - MrX 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

<sarcasm> But wait, it can't be the same person because their virtually identical userpages say that Roshni is from Panaji and Anice is from Kottayam </sarcasm>. I have sockblocked Roshni indef, and I suspect we will need to be on the lookout for more--Jac16888 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page block request

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

I request a talk page block of user Flat Out for her several edits to my talk page. I have discussed the nature of her vandalism with her. Rather than behaving reasonably, she has actually misused the Misplaced Pages warning notices, in opposition to Misplaced Pages staff. Because Flat Out's behavior is persistent, it must be more than a "cool-down" block. Speling12345 (talk) 1:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speling12345 is a persistent disruptive editor, and following a block release has engaged in edit warring and trolling the talk pages of every editor that as reverted one of their edits. Goodnight. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I ask staff to take appropriate actions against the person vandalizing my talk page. Speling12345 (talk) 1:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're both edit warring, stop it. Please read WP:Edit warring, WP:3RR and WP:Talk page guidelines. Tiderolls 13:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• With respect, my reverts are for vandalism and disruptive editing. Diffs of dispruptive talk page posts include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have discussed the vandalism with that person Flat Out, I am not satisfied with a request for both to stop. Speling12345 (talk) 1:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You can both stop or you can both be blocked. Read the pages linked in my previous post. Tiderolls 13:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You will have to include the details directly. Ok. Tell me the details clearly so I can have that person blocked in line with Misplaced Pages's recommendations for blocking. Speling12345 (talk) 1:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You reverted them to excess or their user talk and they did the same on yours. Not the end of the world but very silly in appearance. Move on. I have to believe both of you have better things to do. Tiderolls 13:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "move on" mean? If you are not willing to enforce the block, I will ask a staff member other than you to enforce Misplaced Pages policy against an offensive person. Speling12345 (talk) 1:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no staff, but someone may come along and respond to your request for more opinion. In the meantime, if you continue to edit war I will block your account. Tiderolls 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no staff. Speling12345 (talk) 1:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Spelling12345, you might also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. And, please stop signing your posts with a time that doesn't match up with the Misplaced Pages system time. The time is current 13:36; please stop signing your posts as 12 hours later. only (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Only, what do you mean by, also? Are you going to enforce the talk page block for me? Speling12345 (talk) 1:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that in calling the attention of us to the actions of others, you're calling our attention to your own actions which are currently putting you on a path towards another block for disruption. only (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only, that is a very useful, or, specific, answer. But there is no mention of assistance in your reply to me. Speling12345 (talk) 1:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speling12345 was referred to the talk page guidelines before his/her block, but has continued with a series of nonsense posts to user and article pages.

After I reverted one of Speling12345's edits, he/she asked whether I had ever edited the Albino page (huh?) and proceeded to revert my six most recent edits, including removing relevant talk page comments and deleting sourced content. He/she is indeed persistently disruptive. Kanguole 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Inquiries regarding gender and pigmentation have now been supplemented with this. Block approaching. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• It would be kind of staff to ignore the intrusive and irregular reply of Kanguole, he or she was not related to Flat Out, unless he or she is a sock puppet. Speling12345 (talk) 1:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked Speling12345's account indefinitely as it is clear that he is not here to contribute and is just going to continue being disruptive/immature. User:Tide rolls, I see you placed a warning to him as I was blocking him and that he did respond. If you feel I acted too quickly or you think he deserves a second chance, you're welcome to consider it, but I think that this is the appropriate action at this time. only (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems in your action, only. I was holding off acting as it appeared I was making no headway with them in this thread. I just wanted to make sure they had every opportunity. Tiderolls 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think plenty of WP:ROPE was given. Thanks for your efforts with him, only (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI and legal threats at Oklahoma City Energy FC

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

Oklahoma City Energy FC and the related Oklahoma City Barons have been hit recently by a spate of edits overtly connected to the teams' ownership group, Prodigal LLC: Prodigal llc (talk · contribs · count) and Sportsismylife87 (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked already, but a new one, Prodigal MGT (talk · contribs · count) turned up this morning making the same edits. In addition to blanking sourced content for unspecified accuracy concerns, the accounts have also been making legal threats.--Cúchullain /c 13:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Prodigal llc was already blocked for the user name. I have blocked Sportsismylife87 indefinitely for the legal threats (it had already been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring). I blocked Prodigal MGT indefinitely for the username violation (and edit warring). I've also given the page a week's worth of semi-protection to protect it from any new accounts. I think that should cover it. only (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Portillo and football (soccer)

Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically changing references of ] to ] in articles relating to the Australian game. This is a a problem for a number of reasons. Firstly when placed in prose, Australian football is ambiguous given Australian Football is the official name for Australian rules football and football is used by a number of sports in Australia. Secondly the user has no consensus for this change. There has been a long running debate at Soccer in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Football in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is at best deadlocked and at worst leaning in favour of soccer as the name of the game in Australia. Thirdly, ] points to a redirect rather than the association football page. The user refuses to engage and continues on their way. I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to - I would appreciate some administrative assistance in resolving this issue. Hack (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note I am somewhat involved as I have taken part in a few RMs related to this issue. However, for what it's worth, as the relevant article about the sport in Australia is currently located at Soccer in Australia, then it seems sensible to conclude that 'soccer' is the most appropriate term and therefore should be used. Changing it en masse to 'football' - and yes, this user is fully aware of the issues around this topic - is nothing but disruptive. And changing the target article from 'association football' to 'football (soccer)' i.e. from a direct link to a redirect is just baffling, and raises questions about this user's competency. GiantSnowman 17:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I too think competency is an issue here, or at least an unwillingness to cooperate enough to be a helpful Misplaced Pages editor. None of the hundreds of changes that have led to this report were accompanied by an Edit summary, despite requests to do so. The user has also failed to respond at all in words to requests at both the Talk pages of some of the articles, and on his own Talk page. He did respond to my comments on his Talk page, by simply deleting them. So we have a completely uncommunicative editor making mass changes against consensus, and in defiance of multiple requests to cease and desist. Because he won't communicate, we have no idea why he's doing it either. All very weird. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It would appear the user in question has taken actions into his own hands in relation to discussions to change the usage of "soccer" to "football". On the last point made by Hack, "I would like to go back and change these back but I'm not entirely sure what to change back to", there is a strong desire to change the usage of "soccer" to an alternative, a desire which is currently applicable to the sport. Although HiLo48 has concluded that the topic of naming has been sufficiently discussed, I would disagree with him; I would request that the issue of naming be again looked at. GiantSnowman, you say you have been somewhat involved with the topic, what would you recommend? That the topic be again discussed, or that we draw the line, whip in hand?--2nyte (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You will continue to disagree with me that three failed RfCs is enough to demonstrate a pretty solid consensus for as long as you refuse to accept that consensus, which seems likely to be forever. That contribution of yours does not help resolve this present issue at all. In response to Hack's question on changing the articles back, the obvious thing to do is to simply reverse every one of Portillo's undiscussed edits. The longer term (re)naming issue is for discussion elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What outcome are you seeking HiLo48? For Portillo to receive a slap on the wrist and for the ~500 edits to be reverted? What about all the other users (myself included) that fail to use "soccer"? Will we get blocked form editing for 'vandalism' or 'bad faith edits'? This must be resolved. If you look at the facts plainly and simply they show that we need a compromise that is not "soccer". The three failed RfCs did not properly acknowledged the topic and on all three accounts a rather forceful decision was made. It's no longer enough to say "in Australia, it's soccer" because for many, it simply isn't.--2nyte (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply wanted the massive number of article changes to cease. Portillo did stop around an hour after this thread began, but still hasn't communicated with anybody, so one must question his competence to edit here. If that leads to a block, so be it. We have no real idea why he was doing it, nor really why stopped. He could therefore start again at any moment. Obviously the edits must be reverted. Is there an easy way to do that? I don't know. I'll ignore the rest of your post. It's just you using yet another soapbox to push your POV against a triple consensus. Please stick to the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hack & Hilo are biased anti-football supporters of Project AFL, a project where more time is spent stopping the official name for football in Australia being used by creating false consensus based on what one city in Australia (Melbourne) prefers to use as a nickname for Australian modified Gaelic Football, and creating pointless articles that duplicate specific articles simply to give them a platform for their hatred of Football, than on the actual subject of their project (ie, the AFL). Football is the official name of the sport in Australia, is used at every level of administration, is used as the proper name for the sport in the majority of the country both in common use and in the media, while the other major sports in Australia all have their own official name, which is emphatically not football. They have Rugby League, Rugby Union, and Australian Rules. Yet Hilo belives that only Football should be forced to use an uncommon nickname while the other sports can use their own official names. Hilo has been on a crusade for years to prevent the cultural changes in Australian sport, the media and in common life using the word football being replicated on Misplaced Pages. Even on articles specifically about teams who play football in the A-League, which is the Australian football competition run by Football Federation Australia, and that play in the Asian Football Confederation Champions League, the AFL Project continue to vandalise, disrupt and attack people who only want to use the correct, official name of the sport in their articles. Users Hack & Hilo should be banned from disrupting the football community on wikipedia and be told to stick to their own Australian modified Gaelic Football league articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a background, Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted mentions of ] to ], suggesting vandalism on the part of other users who happen to be members of WP:AFL. For disclosure, I'm a member of WP:AFL, WP:FOOTBALL and WP:FSIA. Hack (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that the above is a true representation of the case. User Hack and Hilo should have received a topic ban well and truly by now based on the simple fact that they refuse to accept the weight of evidence regarding the ongoing shift away from soccer and towards football in Australia. I as well as many other editors have tried to establish this with supporting evidence, while Hilo in particular continues to ignore verifiability while instead promoting a POV argument that does not reflect the evidence based naming shift that has occurred in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

yes the name has been shifted from Soccer to Football by the sports governing body, the term Football is ambigious and will remain so currently the use of football if assigned to any sport would be Australian Rules as that clearly meets the requirements of WP:Primary Topic for the term Football... but that isnt total relevant here the issue is Portillo actions clearly they are pushing a disambiguation term that isnt acceptable to 90% of all editors involved in the subject matter and using an automated to achieve 3-4 edits per minute, noting that the user isnt on the list authorised for AWB. The user lack of responding to any requests I think a block would be an appropriate action at this stage. Gnangarra 07:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sanity. Hack and I are among the editors who understand the evidence that has three times in the past couple of years led to Administrators closing RfCs in favour of the name Soccer in Australia. (I wonder if Orestes wants those Admins banned too?) A handful of "soccer should be called football" campaigners have refused to accept that ruling (three times!) and now routinely and vexatiously re-open discussions and throw abuse around. No new evidence has been presented, just the same evidence, rudely and repetitively. These editors are possibly the cause of Portillo's weird behaviour over the past couple of days, by giving him the idea that what he did would be OK. They certainly aren't accepting consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, if we want sanity to prevail then there is a double edged sword here and it clearly shows that you have a history of not being civil to other users, myself included. Nor am I perfect, however, neither is HiLo48. Although unlike HiLo48 I have not received a ban due to lack of civility in the past. While I agree in principle that what Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did was not the best way of managing this and I agree with any necessary ramifications, there is more to it than the above. There is a concerted agenda of meat puppetry and consensus stacking in order to promote the agenda that the sport of soccer has no place being called football, even in concern to internationally recognised Australian players such as Lucas Neill and Tim Cahill in order to push the POV argument that these players and other Australian based articles should refer to the sport of soccer and not football. Moreover there is also an ongoing push to neglect the recent history of the sport and the change in official name from soccer to football. Promoting the agenda that this is one sided is hardly correct by any stretch of the imagination --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh corks, this again. I'll try and give some background here.

The two most popular football codes in Australia are Australian Rules Football and Rugby League Football, with the country divided by what is know as "the Barassi line". Less popular but with significant followings are Rugby Union Football and Association Football. Throughout the world, "Association Football" is usually referred to as just "football", except in a few countries where not the main football code. Examples are the USA and Australia, where "Association Football" is usually called "soccer".

I personally dislike the term "soccer", and try not to use it. It annoys people from countries where Association Football is the main football code (ie: almost everywhere). To me its Oxford "-er" is suggestive of a distinction between "rugger" (the game played by toffs) and "soccer" (the game played by commoners).

In Australia there has been a recent push to establish "football" as having the primary meaning "Association Football". Some examples:

• Soccer Australia was re-named Football Federation Australia in 2005. (The modern predecessor organizations all had the word "Soccer" in their names)
• The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's website's sport home page has these navigation links:

News Home • Sport Home • Just In • Cricket • Football • Rugby Union • Rugby League • AFL • More

But. It hasn't really caught on. Maybe in a decade or so, who knows? For now, and like it or not, in Australia "Association Football" is most commonly known as "soccer".

As for this being a "Melbourne conspiracy", I've lived half my life above the "Barassi line" (if you count time overseas). I love the fact the A-League is played as a summer sport (so as not to be in competition with the Australian Rules and Rugby League) and I can listen to one of my favourite football codes on the radio during the Cricket season.

One may as well try and rename "Soccer mom" to "Football mom" or "Raw Like Sushi" to "Raw Like Sashimi".

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately soccer mom is an anachronism like the US english spelling that gives it away. You are also right, I like many others including yourself try to avoid using the word soccer in conversation unless necessary. As the FFA said when they rebranded the sport, cited in context, it's not supposed to catch on over night. On the issue broadly however, I look at it from an academic perspective and while the word soccer may be a common name, the cut and dry perspective is that it is no longer the correct name. We have to look at this as to whether we want Misplaced Pages to represent the currently accepted official name, correctly as it is. Or whether we want to use a term that for all intents and purposes has been scrubbed out. I have suggested a few compromises Association football (soccer) and its variants in the past with a redirect to soccer. I have no agenda as Hilo48 would suggest other than to represent this particular article as it should be rather than via a term that has been put aside officially. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As you have been told numerous times, the official name isn't always the most appropriate name per WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIG. Football is ambiguous in the Australian context, therefore a commonly known alternative is required. It's not a difficult concept. Hack (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is redundant when there are 3 other "football" codes articles that use the term football and yet the one sport that actually uses the name football proper in this country has no entitlement to it. It's this kind of illogical, irrational behaviour that leads to the reaction I don't agree with by Portillo. I may not be able to agree with it but I can rationalise with why they reacted in such a manner --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have said above, the current community consensus - whether you agree or not - is that the sport of association football on Australia should be known on Misplaced Pages as 'soccer' - it really is that simple. If/when that changes (although looking at the recent RFCs, some of which I participated in, such a change is unlikely to happen anytime soon) then we can change the terminology. But for now, 'soccer' should be used. GiantSnowman 11:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just coming back to the changes by Portillo, I was disappointed that the editor ignored attempts to discuss the issue. However, I don't feel that a block is in order - it is done, and unless Portillo starts up again, a block now would be punitive, although I'd be willing to consider one again if the issue starts up again. I'm inclined, though, to revert the changes, unless there is some opposition. I don't necessarily like the prior state, but given the intensity of the naming dispute, we're not going to get consensus to use a single term in the immediate future unless we do something extreme. Thus it seems that the best option is to return things to how they were, and then to discuss whether or not a single term has current consensus. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There were a number of variants used including ], ], ], ]. I would suggest there be some sort of uniform usage such as ]. Hack (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on the results of the last RfC, which is the nearest thing we have to a current consensus, I'd agree with you. But as this is likely to be disputed, my thought was that it might be best to just revert now, leave the articles as inconsistent, and then try to work out what term to use. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That consensus is invalid, falsely declared by a biased group of people who aren't working in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, but instead are working for the best interests of a single sport played in a major capacity in only one city of one state of one single country. The various sports all have their own specific official titles used on Misplaced Pages. Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league, American football. Misplaced Pages has an official policy of referring to Football as Association football, most often shown as Football. Yet Project AFL continue to push for just one of these sports to be denied the use of the official name of the sport OR what the worldwide consensus on wikipedia is on naming the same sport. The AFL project continue to create a false consensus that somehow it is 'confusing' if Football is used alongside the official names for other sports Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Their claim comes down to their belief that people from one city in Australia (Melbourne) should be coddled because they are too stupid to understand the clear and obvious differences between Association football, Australian rules, Rugby union, Rugby league & American football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Portillo blocked for 48 hours. Aside from the disruption detailed here, he simultaneously (1) didn't respond to any of the allegations made here, and (2) just kept on going with the link changes. GiantSnowman, I'm guessing that the football (soccer) links were to facilitate quicker work, since you can simply type ] and get a link displaying as "football". Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just unblocked. I failed to check the contribution history — he "ignored" this ANI thread because his last edit was some ten hours before this thread was filed. The editing is still highly problematic, and I would suggest that someone else reimpose a block simply because enough disruption has been demonstrated here. However, I can't allow my own block to stand when it was based on a pretty blatant misunderstanding. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Portillo's actions, though overly bold, are symptomatic of the poisonous atmosphere surrounding this matter. "Soccer" is definitely the term in common parlance Australia-wide, but we can't use anecdotes to support our articles, and when I see the major media outlets calling it "Football", the names of the various organising bodies using "Football" rather than "Soccer", I think that if we need reliable sources, they mostly fall on the Football side of the line. Substitution of wikipolicy with personal attacks is no answer. This whole matter is a running sore, an embarrassment to us all. --Pete (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Bilby's post at 13:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC) - I support such an approach. Portillo seems to have stopped his misbehaviour, so that half of the problem is fixed for the moment. The other half is deciding what we do about all the changes he made. Given that they were done without discussion or agreement with anyone else, the logical thing to do right now is just reverse his actions. The debate over what the name should be long term can continue elsewhere (I somehow suspect it will), but we cannot wait for resolution of that discussion before we sort out this mess. So, can Portillo's edits be reversed in any automated way? If not, I'm happy to play some part in putting things back in order. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have consistently reminded users Hack and particularly HiLo48. That we CANNOT use anecdotes as evidence under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. All of this has fallen on deaf ears. I have consistently ALSO reminded user HiLo48 about Misplaced Pages:ORIGINAL with regards to his claims. There seems to be an ongoing INTERNAL reference to OR concept of research on the Barrassi Line and its effects on soccer (football) which has no direct reference to soccer (football) ITSELF. This is nothing more than consistent OR and internal self referencing which is used for meat puppetry and consensus stacking. I have consistently reminded HiLo48 of this and have been treated with contempt which goes against Misplaced Pages:Civility. The constant provocation has at times led me to react improperly, however I digress, if anything HiLo48's consistent lack of civility should be the straw that breaks the camels back here rather than my reaction to an editor who does not understand the concept of Misplaced Pages:ORIGINAL . The ongoing claim about the Barassi line and its relevance to soccer (football) cannot stand on its own under Misplaced Pages:ORIGINAL as original research by which a consensus IS being stacked. The tendentious editing and failure to verify broad statements in discussion is an ongoing issue which cannot continue. Any further claims about the Barassi line regarding soccer (football) MUST be verified.--Orestes1984 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please take these off-topic matters elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they're not off topic, the reasoning it has gotten this far is extremely similar to the reasoning I continue to have civility related issues with yourself. Furthermore, your consistent statement that the matters at hand RELATING to why this outcome has occurred are "off topic" according to yourself and yourself only, are a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:Civility. The matters I am talking about here are directly related to why this event has occurred and WHY they have blown out of proportion. Your use of the passive aggressive line of reasoning, most recently in Talk:Soccer_in_Australia with claims of myself being "off topic" where you have directly referenced me are direct signposts to this kind of irrational, illogical, passive aggressive behaviour. The fact that you continue to deny the fact that the current issues I'm raising are meaningful and pertinently on topic only continue to highlight your problematic nature as an editor. I have previously asked you to simply clarify your position, I have also asked as with Talk:Soccer_in_Australia as to why you brought me into this discussion with much the same result. I have had discussions previously with yourself where I have been responded to with nothing more than "you're talking crap." No this kind of continued activity is exactly why these incidents have been elevated to this level. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong place. Not helping here at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To bring this to some sort of conclusion... User:Portillo has made no edits at all on Misplaced Pages since this thread began, so no more damage has been done, and User:Bilby has reverted all (I think) of Portillo's questionable changes. All we have left is the mystery that Portillo has not communicated at all with anybody on Misplaced Pages since the dramas began. Presumably he has at least read what has been written on his Talk page, and perhaps here. I think we can all move on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like User:Bilby is still going - there are more to be reverted. Hack (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is about more than Portillo's edits. This discussion and the long acrimonious saga on Talk:Soccer in Australia is disruptive and an illustration of what Misplaced Pages is not about. It's just a name, but goodness me, what a lot of egotism is invested in it! --Pete (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're replying to but I would suggest that commenting in this thread is not really in the spirit of your interaction ban with User:HiLo48. Hack (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I should be done before too long - there have been subsequent edits, so I'm being cautious rather than automatically undoing each edit. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please block ‎Mumbojumbo1000

‎Mumbojumbo1000 (talk · contribs) is a new account that is now edit warring on Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), even promts me to state my case on the talk page, where he waists no time deleting my comments on said talkpage. Plain case of abuse I think. — Edokter (talk) — 13:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

They already reverted their removal from the talkpage themself. So, discuss ES&L 14:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for action at this time; he did revert at the talk page, but then reverted it back in 2 minutes' time. If he continues to edit war, take it to Misplaced Pages:AN3. only (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Frivolous warnings/harrassment on User talk:Raykyogrou0 and User talk:Sni56996 by User:ONITOPIA (with talk page comment altering)

This user has repeatedly been harassing me and Sni on our talk pages: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6

After warnings for his edits were issued: diff 1 -- me, informing him about posting on sni's talk page diff 2 -- same

Here he struck out said warnings, which I reverted before posting another warning. Apparently, he didn't read WP:TPO so I posted another warning and informed him that deleting comments is fine, but altering the meaning isn't. And again and again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 16:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please let me point out the report I announced to do on December 26th, 2013: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I felt the need to do so since this Frivolous warnings/harrassment is something I feel done to all users who have a different opinion than User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996, especially in this single case which is the only reason for this dispute User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 are not willing to settle (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). This Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seems to only be a result of me announcing my report.
• User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 kept deleting all warnings directed to them on their Talk pages, so please be sure you check their User Talk page history and their behavior towards all users in the dispute case (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring).
• Please make sure to look at the history of all pages since User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 like to alter history to make it look better at first sight. Those who investigate are able to see the truth. Thank you!

--ONITOPIA (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• For additional proof for User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 behavior see: User talk:DjScrawl. --ONITOPIA (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I locked both pages involved in the content dispute. I think that you all need to stop templating each other. TALK. Go to each other's pages and write productive messages. Do not just slap templates over each other's talk pages. We are a project based on collaboration and conversation, not WARN WARN WARN WARN. All three of you are now banned from placing warnings on each other's talk pages. The only thing you can place on there is conversations. I'll let others weigh in with more ideas, but you need to stop warning each other and think that's going to solve the issues. only (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked ONITOPIA for one week for disruptive editing, including persistent aggression, personal attacks, and sock puppetry. Although a bit stale, ONITOPIA, has been using IPs at the same time as he is editing to gain the upper hand in disputes on these articles: 46.115.48.6 (talk · contribs) and 46.115.122.181 (talk · contribs). Both are German IP addresses. In addition to the fact that the two IPs "agree" with ONITOPIA, ONITOPIA is apparently German (see - note the user of the word "warnung" instead of warning). As an aside, I do not see the refactoring Raykyogrou0 refers to above; I see only striking, i.e., no changing of meaning. Finally, I express no opinion about the content dispute itself, which, of course, doesn't even belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, (if there is a next time) I will post a normal message instead. But doesn't "striking text constitute a change in meaning"? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The user is entitled to remove the warning. Striking it seems to be more "honest" than removal. They're saying they disagree with it but leaving it in place for others to see without checking the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

108.89.165.164 Disruptive Editing

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

This IP's only contributions seem to be deletion of TV show articles. It has been warned various times and anon-blocked once, but still returned to its previous activities today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbadal (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree that something should be done. Not sure exactly what, though, as IP addresses can't be indef-blocked. Erpert 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I filed a report at WP:AIV. However, since the IP user only made one edit today, they will most likely not be blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)How did an IP get the ability to delete articles??--Auric talk 05:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What Nbadal meant is that the IP blanked the articles, not deleted them. ;) Erpert 07:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, looks like s/he got blocked after all. Erpert 07:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Page locked by admins violating WP:OWN

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

Skin Game (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Page was inappropriately locked by abusive admins who were involved in a content dispute and abused their power both to block participants and to fix "their" version in clear violation of WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.235 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocks should not be punitive See also: Misplaced Pages:Sanctions against editors are not punishment Policy shortcuts: WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE WP:NOPUNISH Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users; or where there is no current conduct issue of concern.

THEY VIOLATED ALL OF THIS. Huon and Ronhjones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.235 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You're conflating several things. It was determined in this discussion that the page would be a redirect. If you wanted to turn it back into a page on the book, you should've contacted the closing user: Richard-of-Earth (talk · contribs) or gone to WP:DRV.--v/r - TP 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments like suggest if a block wasn't deserved before, perhaps it's deserved now. But anyway suggest a block was deserved before, and except for the last one, that's just going by the edit summaries! With that sort of behaviour, don't be surprised if people can't be bothered checking if you have any legitimate concern. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a month for disruption. Seems like a very long pattern with this user. My block is in no way a comment on the locking of the page, though. If others still want to discuss whether the protection by the other admins was appropriate there, have at it. only (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ronhjones semi-protected this page over a week ago, to end an admittedly small-scale edit war and restore the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel) . There might be an argument for lifting the semi-protection, but there was consensus at the "Articles for Deletion" page for this to be a redirect as an article on an unreleased book was premature. Rather than posting here can I suggest if you think there's sufficient secondary sources to justify an article on this book, you raise a discussion at Talk:The Dresden Files and see if other editors agree. If there's broad agreement, you'll be in a better position to overturn the decision at the "Articles for Deletion" page. Alternatively you can wait for the book to be released and then write the article. Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've added a link to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel) at Talk:Skin Game (novel). It's only semi-protected - I note someone tried to change it to an article six days ago, and also get reverted (and not by me or User:Huon).  Ronhjones  20:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ronhjones violated WP:SEMIPROTECT by semiprotecting the page in response to an edit war when the policy states that full protection should be used (although IAR might apply), and possibly violated WP:INVOLVED. Good block though. Dark Sun (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with WP:IAR if used correctly - the edit war was down to an IP on a dynamic address - thus obvious choice is a semi- protect (yes - block the IP, and 10 minutes later he will be back!). As for involved, I can't even remember why I went to the page in the first place - it not a subject of mine - The only thing that would have taken me there would be a report at AIV or my talk page or OTRS - and I can't see any obvious link there. I must have read the page for a while as I used Twinkle to add some tags - Twinkle then added them after User:Huon had reverted back to a redirect (sadly, pages don't update on your PC while your read them!), so I had to self revert - hence the strange editing at 22:11 on the 19th. C'ést la vie  Ronhjones  00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not used admin tools on Skin Game (novel) or regarding 98.199.208.235. That said, 98.199.208.235 is completely incapable of civil discourse in the face of disagreement, as shown by Nil Einne above. On the issue, 98.199.208.235 failed to provide or point out any significant coverage in third-party sources - unsurprising for a book that hasn't been published yet. Given the AfD (and the insults), this was not merely a content dispute but disruptive editing on 98.199.208.235's part. Huon (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I found the link - User:98.199.208.235 called for help with 5 helpme templates on his talk page - I saw that on the Admin Dashboard and my edit at 22:21, 19 December 2013‎ killed the helpme with tlx. So in effect he shot himself in the foot.  Ronhjones  00:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

God I just read all that crap and these are two of the worst lying admins i've ever seen. there are plenty of sources just from google searching alone here's a link: https://www.google.com/search?q=skin+game+dresden+files

it's covered at aint it cool news, sffworld, sarah's reviews, has amazon and barnes and noble listings for preorder, arched doorway has covereage and so does tor.com

i was going to try to fix this myself but i found out clicking through that this is locked up and that is ridiculous that these two can hold it hostage like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.208.150 (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

i have tryed to put it in your stupid deletion review thing as the talk page says why does it not show up there?????? this site is shit!!!!!!

It's not for everyone. This site, that is. Maybe you can relax a bit and learn how to navigate it. If you can't, you can't. Doc talk 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP as a pretty obvious sock of User:98.199.208.235. only (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a substantiative change on Dec 19, the author announced publication date of March 27 author's website. This seems to have been generally missed in the discussions. The book series are bestsellers and upcoming titles with a publication date meet the book notability guideline (until Dec 19 it would not have). I am unwilling to csll BITE but some AGF and research would have helped. I am un-redirecting, per the book notability guideline and newly established publication date. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued deletion of complaints about biased editing abuses

I strongly object to the removal of my complaints about abusive biased editing practices which I placed on the talk page of the article that the editor in question edits abusively most frequently, to serve as a warning to other editors and, I hoped, to request administrator action against the abuses: , , . I ask that User:Cadiomals's attempt to censor my complaints and warnings be reverted, and that User:VictorD7 be appropriately sanctioned for the clear abuses documented in the section which Cadiomals thinks is okay to delete.

I would also like some guidance about how to report such abuses in the future, please. EllenCT (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See? Was it so hard posting your grievances here rather than on the Talk page of an article, where it is inappropriate and irrelevant? The first and foremost rule from WP:TALK is that article Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of discussing direct changes/improvements to the articles. Kudos for finding your way. Cadiomals (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Use user talk pages and, in extreme cases, noticeboards next time. Dark Sun (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, what I'm seeing from EllenCT looks far more like tattletaling in order to 'win' a dispute than a sincere and well-founded attempt to help an editor with their behaviour. I'm not 100% sure that the removed section strictly matches the rather narrow criteria by which one can remove talk-page comments, and WP:Hatting the section might have been a better choice, but it's at best borderline and Cadiomals' action seems to have been a good-faith attempt to stop a dispute or at least point it to a more appropriate venue. No action against Cadiomals is warranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen failed to even try to make a rational argument that I should be "sanctioned". Her low quality, POV pushing edits have been reverted by several different editors across multiple articles, not just me (e.g. ,, ). In this example: , she was reverted after trying to covertly slip in highly contentious economic/taxation material already under discussion (and ultimately rejected by strong consensus) with a totally misleading edit summary that pretended she was simply undoing some small, recent change to a different section. It's difficult to maintain assumptions of good faith under such conditions. Editors have been extremely patient with her for a long time, but she's been a persistently disruptive influence on multiple articles and Talk Pages, and perhaps it's time to examine whether she should be sanctioned. VictorD7 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor Sounds like we're in Australia again... Erpert 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While commenting on this probably won't help relations in our current discussions, I do feel Ellen has a WP:TEDIOUS editing style and I'd welcome any review or intervention that might help us become more productive. Morphh 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I will certainly not vouch for much of VictorD7's past behavior, EllenCT is being hypocritical plain and simple for reporting Victor's "biased editing abuses" when she also has quite the history of her own "biased editing abuses". I'm less familiar with her activity on other articles, but in United States she has a history of either childish attempts at circumventing discussion or being a general drag on the discussion and consensus-building process (though Victor too has a history of being confrontational and disagreeable). I think Ellen is misguided in how United States is supposed to look based on WP:SUMMARY, and often has a hard time letting things go even when consensus has repeatedly shown itself to be against her. At least she has stopped trying to insert content into the article without first consulting Talk, but she continues to be a general drag in progress there by continuing her advocacy of irrelevant content, and the recent off-topic dispute crossed the line to merit removal.

I don't think much more can reasonably be done except telling both of them to cool it. To prevent drawn out back-and-forth, instead of directly addressing one another, they should only seek opinions and consensus from others from now on. Otherwise, Ellen's post to this noticeboard was just a failed attempt at trying to make herself look like a victim. Cadiomals (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I reject any attempt to equate me with Ellen (how about the other people debating her, including yourself?), especially one based on no evidence. A baseless "pox on both their houses" attitude is intellectually lazy at best. All my edits and posts have been in good faith, and I've always been willing to rationally and civilly discuss any of them. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 is trying to include his political opinions by relying on non-peer reviewed sources, while the sources he complains about my inserting in opposition are peer reviewed and secondary. He has also been following my contributions to other articles, harassing me in an attempt to try to make that work out somehow. I have only asked that VictorD7 be encouraged to edit without conflicts, while he has asked that I be "banned from Misplaced Pages". I ask that VictorD7 be instructed to either edit based on peer reviewed sources or stop editing on the topics where we disagree. EllenCT (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

False on all counts. I've repeatedly bent over backwards to make good faith efforts to engage you on the issues where we've disagreed, and I'm not the one who ran to report you to admin (and falsely at that). VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Having commented on the substantive issue at Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#Fourth_opinion, I would suggest that you two cool it a bit and refrain from the personal insults for a while. Also avoid trading long biting exchanges on the talkpage if you can. Maybe take it to talk to clarify the confusion or even have a phone conversation. You both seem to be capable of making rational contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll admit I lean left (and believe that reality has a left-wing bias), so I'm favorably inclined towards Ellen's position (and have seen quite a bit of good work from her) and naturally a bit suspicious of self-described conservatives. I suppose that goes both ways but the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like a valiant attempt. II | (t - c) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the point of the political commentary here is, but I'll note that in the section he linked to I and another editor politely corrected II's mistakes, and today he politely conceded "looks like I was wrong". That's the way discussions among editors are supposed to unfold. It's when Ellen gets involved that all too often rationality and civility go out the window. VictorD7 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with this characterization. I was wrong about some federal tax numbers, but I think there is still a legitimate argument to be made about corporate tax incidence assumptions, which are highly debatable per e.g. Corporate Tax Incidence and Its Implications for Progressivity (2009) and How TPC Distributes The Corporate Income Tax (2012). It's not clear to me that either of you are really engaging that well on this point exactly either; seems to have just descended into insults. In addition, I lean towards agreeing with Ellen on the omission of the effects of state and local taxes as it seems somewhat arbitrary (and hence potentially politically-motivated) although I understand that there may be data limitations. As far as your political self-identification, it's a reasonable heuristic. Nobody should be using Misplaced Pages as a political platform but in my seven years floating around here I've seen more conservatives run afoul of that then the other way around. By definition, a heuristic is not perfect, but if you associate yourself with a group where the majority don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, evolution, etc then you should expect to receive additional scrutiny. The economics wikiproject is probably overrepresented with libertarians and it's a bit of a problem. Also, keep in mind that we don't always do things based on majorities around here. It's !votes, not votes. If a majority of people !vote to change evolution so it says it's just a theory and the world is 13,000 years sold similar to Conservapedia, the one person dissenting (and hopefully reverting) is in the right. II | (t - c) 00:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

More socks from Newestcastleman

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

Hello, could an Admin please block User:SportsGamer1.. I believe it's another sock account of Newestcastleman SPI, who has already had multiple accounts blocked. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

request courtesy blanking of edit summary

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

could someone blank this edit summary . Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given the female anatomy references in the edit itself as in the edit summary, revdel it all... Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Revdel applied to all four edits on that user page. Since there are no useful edits at all from that mobile phone range, I have rangeblocked it for a month. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent incivility and personal attacks by AndyTheGrump

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

User:AndyTheGrump is exhibiting disruptive, persistent incivility and personal attacks at the Gun control article. I understand that Gun control is a heated subject, but there is no excuse for this editor violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with disgusting temper tantrums and personal attacks like this one and this one. He has spent very little time actually discussing the material that is in dispute, instead choosing to attack other editors and misrepresent their motives at every turn. This editor's terrible behavior has already resulted in at least one editor leaving the project. This is the worst it gets on Misplaced Pages. Last, but not least, it's also worth noting that this editor (Andy) has been repeatedly blocked over the years for this same kind of behavior. ROG5728 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a slight correction. I have left the article in question, but am currently still in the project. Otherwise, ROG5728 is spot on.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of raising anything from gun control at ANI? It's a heated topic, that sort of thing happens. It's more effective to ignore it than it is to fan the issue here. Since WP:CIVIL was revoked for favoured editors, this sort of attempt to use it on other editors is too partisan. It's a barely uncivil comment and took place amongst a whole bunch of tag team edit warring. CIVILity wasn't this edit's main problem.

I wish Andy the Grump would stick to more parliamentary language, but in a politically hot topic that's already well past the Godwins threshold, I'm not going to censure him for what he said. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we throw out WP civility policies when we happen to be on heated topics? You can only "ignore" bad behavior for so long before it becomes disruptive. Neither of those diffs could be described as "barely uncivil." ROG5728 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Contentiousness of the situation is inevitable. Maybe even failing to have truly engaged discussion is (all too) common. But the extreme amount of trying to "win by nastiness" (trying to insult and villianize editors and their viewpoints and posts) as a way to "get ahead" by deprecating them, and heaping abuse on editors, deliberately misstating what other editors have said, continuous false accusations, ad hominem arguments, has gotten way out of hand. And there are editors on both sides of the issue who are willing to and keep starting civil discussions, and those discussions keep getting derailed by such nastiness. Andy and Geothean have been at the middle of it, Goethean has dialed back a bit in the last 1-2 days. . I'm not the type to seek sanctions, but twice In threads I've asked to have the situation reviewed and some warnings against those types of behaviors issued (just in general, not against any particular editor(s) would be fine), and both got closed, ....once already (and a second attempt now unsigned) by non-admin involved persons. Turmoil there is inevitable, viciousness against and abuse of editors is not Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To anyone seeking to close this again: Closures ought only be done by impartial persons, and such closures should be signed. The prior "closure" was improper on both grounds. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I happen to hold a first-class honours social science degree from a leading British university perhaps there is a larger problem here, Grump may have an unnatural opinion of his role in the project as well as a hypersensitivity to clueless patronising fuckwittery his opinion of others is not only disruptive, but could be considered hurtful to trolls, loons, and otherwise decent folk, patronising little troll...craziest of crazies...if you had an ounce of human decency. far too long has this behavior been excused by the editors acknowledgement he is a grump. i suggest it is time to cheer-up and play nice you super-shinny bag of horse happiness. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is something inherently not right in using a civility enforcement to advantage in a content dispute. Were Discretionary Sanctions available I would topic ban the lot of you and get truly uninvolved editors to sort it out. But this has to stop. Gamaliel has been warning and cajoling and trouting to no avail. I strongly suggest that everyone listen to him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is something inherently not right about attacking and insulting other editors and discouraging them from participating on Misplaced Pages. Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore an editor's longstanding bad behavior just because he's involved in a content dispute? As I pointed out earlier, this is a long term trend with this editor. ROG5728 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• What is particularly conspicuous is that the main article, Gun legislation in Germany, has seen relatively little editing in the same period, with two significant excisions but nothing like the kind of death struggle seen here. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• While Andy is admittedly getting uselessly angry, and might do well to leave the page alone for awhile, ROG5728, his comments need to be read in the context of others on the page. The whole article, and its talkpage, is a battleground. Compare Gamaliel's comment on the page today: "I've only been following what passes for debate here for a single evening, but I'm already disgusted and I want to trout the lot of you, on both sides of this." Hear, hear. As for your claim that Anythingyouwant is leaving the project, you obviously misunderstood his comment about leaving the page and taking it off his watchlist. (I thought it was very clear, and really, I would have thought it implied that he wouldn't follow the quarrel to ANI either, but whatever.)

Agree with GWH that dragging an opponent to ANI looks a lot like a battleground move on your part, ROG5728. What looks still worse is blatantly canvassing the people who agree with you. As far as I can see from your contributions, you've notified a bunch of people who agree with you, and nobody else, about this ANI "discussion". Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

Don't worry Bishonen, I merely wanted to correct a misstatement about me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion there at Gun control for several months, and I haven't noticed any of the other editors stooping to this level of incivility (or even close to it). If you have diffs to the contrary, please provide them. Again, are you seriously suggesting we should ignore an editor's longstanding bad behavior just because he's involved in a content dispute? This is a long term trend with this editor. ROG5728 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't validate dragging a user to ANI in order to remove him from a content dispute and then blatantly violating WP:CANVASS to try to skew the argument in your favour. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't validate "dragging" a user to ANI? Why not? ROG5728 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"This is the worst it gets on Misplaced Pages."....not even close. There is something inherently not right about people with strong opinions on gun control editing articles about gun control. They should do the right thing and just walk away. Of course that will never happen, but why not ? It's easy. There are over 4 million other articles to edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You appear not to have addressed the canvassing concerns, which was part of the same sentence. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

re ROG - I can see a difference in rudeness levels between the two factions. And am not afraid of san tioning people for sufficiently bad personal attacks. But to directly answer the question - Yes, I will ignore history rather than decide a content dispute by sanctioning only one side as is asked for here. If I were to intervene I would full protect the article talk page for the duration of any other intervention, to prevent that. We 'usually do not' full protect talk pages, but protection policy does not forbid it, and this situation is not 'usual'. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

side note - I see a valid civility complaint here. The CANVASS and BOOMERANG comments seem not helpful. But again, using civility to 'win' a content dispute is not going to happen from my mop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "content dispute", please note that the article is already protected from editing and has been for days, so it's not like we stand to "win an edit war" by getting this editor temporarily blocked or warned for his bad behavior. I was not necessarily asking for a long term block, either; but this kind of bad behavior warrants a stern warning at the very least. ROG5728 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to stern warnings, ROG5728: I think I must have spoken too softly above, since you have ignored my most important point. How about this: canvassing is very disruptive. If you do something like that again, you risk being blocked. I hope that's clearer. I've put a warning on your page too, to make sure. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC).

I was not aware of a duty to notify ALL editors about an ANI discussion. I notified the editor that was the subject of the ANI (Andy), and I notified the editors that have suffered from his incivility firsthand (some of whom have been the subject of his personal attacks). In the future I will try to notify everyone. With that said, why do you (Bishonen) have such a keen interest in my behavior, as opposed to Andy's flagrant violations of civility and WP:NPA? It doesn't seem right. ROG5728 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Again - don't try and use this complaint or noticeboard to win a content dispute. That DOES bring BOOMERANG into plat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You are only required to notify the subject of your complaint. However, if you are going to draw attention of others to the ANI section, you need to follow WP:CANVASS. In this case, that means that you should have notified everyone involved in the talk page dispute, or none of them. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any how, since Andy has been warned by GWH for his outburst, and ROG5728 has been warned against using ANI as a content dispute battleground and canvassing, I think this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, my mistake; and I will notify all editors in future cases. I guess I will also take the other admin's advice and do my best to just ignore incivility and personal attacks by other editors, especially if they happen in the midst of content disputes. ROG5728 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer your lesson be that "please block both the editors on the other side of this content dispute because they are being unspeakably rude" is a lot more complicated than "unspeakably rude". There are a bunch of issues in play, and multiple Misplaced Pages core calues in conglict. CIVIL does not trump NPOV, which would be affected by strong one sided sanctions without regard for the context. If you keep that in mind future incidents can be handled in a more straightforwards manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Resolve licence dispute for File:Dielectric_model.svg

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

Hello, I'm trying to resolve a licensing conflict in File:Dielectric_model.svg The problem seems to stem from the assertion that the SVG is based on a public domain PNG file File:Dielectric model.png which has since been deleted. Would it be possible to find out what the licence was before it was deleted? The deletion reason only says "csd i1" and I can't find that code in WP:CSD Thanks. Cube00 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary This is an diagram I drew in paint. It shows how an electric field interact with an atom under the classical dielectric model.

Timwilson85 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Licensing PD-self

Hope that helps, Nick (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on this CSD I1 at the time is the same as CSD#F1 now, that the file is elsewhere. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The destination file on the Commons has now been changed to the same license as the source file on en.wiki. I also added the original upload log and deleted the local file as F8. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Banned from aspartame controversy

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

I would like to have the ban against me for posting at aspartame controversy lifted? I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force. Arydberg (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1. please link to the discussion where the ban was enacted
2. please show proof of your successful editing outside of that topic since it was enacted
3. please provide a description of how things will be different should you be allowed back to editing that topic ES&L 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Relevant AN/I discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• The user was already informed at the time the ban was instituted that a pattern of constructive editing outside the topic area was a prerequisite for having the topic ban lifted. However, since then he or she has made only two article-space edits: . IMHO this is not enough to establish a track record of successful editing outside the topic area. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you need to understand as has been explained to you before that simply staying away without actually editing other articles is not likely to get your topic ban revoked. The simple fact is, your history means we can't trust you to edit in the area of dispute. If you show an ability to edit constructively elsewhere, we hope that what you learnt from that editing combined with the time away will mean we can trust you, but the time away is not likely to be enough. If you disagree with your topic ban so strongly that don't wish to contribute here while your have it in place or whatever, that's fully your choice edit: but it does mean you may never effectively never be able to return. ButAnd do understand if you can't edit elsewhere because you feel you must be able to in the topic where edit: we feel you have problems in, that simply reenforces the view we can't trust you to edit there. And continuing to ask hurts the chances you will be allowed back in to that area. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban, absolutely no evidence that the editor's understanding of Misplaced Pages's content rules has advanced significantly since the ANI discussion that resulted in the topic ban, plus "I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force." indicates their intention to return immediately to the problematic topic area. Zad68 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Arydberg's edit count also indicates that they're more interested in posting on talk pages than they are in improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just want to mark my comment above as a formal Oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783#Propose topic ban (Immortale and Arydberg)

User talk:Arydberg#Topic ban

Repeating the advice Arydberg recieved ten months ago, "Please please please listen to us again. You need to edit constructively in areas other than aspartame before you ask for your topic ban has ANY chance of being revoked. If you continue trying to get it removed without showing us you can be constructive (for at least 6 months or so before reapplying), you run a strong risk of being not only banned, but blocked from editing anything at all." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – you've made about two edits to article space since your ban. You should make some more edits to article space before you can reapply. Epicgenius (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per own statement, "I find it difficult to be a member of this community when the ban is in force" which sounds like a warning that lifting the topic ban will lead to a return to the same topics and tactics that necessitated the ban in the first place. Come on, a wiki with 4.5 million articles on myriad topics, there has to be something else you can work on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zad and Starblind took the words right out of my mouth. Erpert 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although time formally has no meaning on Misplaced Pages, it's my firm belief that if you come to ask a favour on ANI, you'd better have the time to respond to concerns and questions when raised within a reasonable period of time. It's now been 24hrs with no response to my original 3 questions (yes, I already knew the answer to the first one). The other two are vital requirements for any request for a lessening of a topic ban, and the editor was required to include them as information in their request. Of course, I already knew the answer to question 2 because there are essentially zero contributions to this project. Topic bans are not "time served" - they are to give the editor time/space to re-prove themselves as potentially beneficial editors to this project. They are usually given in lieu of an indefinite block in situations where the community sees some possible degree of hope. Without any proof, and without any way forward, there's absolutely no possible way to lessen the restrictions. If you cannot "enjoy" Misplaced Pages without contributing to a specific topic, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not for you - we have far too many fringe-pushing SPA's already, tyvm ES&L 18:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎

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

This article was brought up on the fringe theories board, so I looked it over. It is one huge BLP vio, none of the BLPs in that article have stated they "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎". This is a BLP vio in that a few editors have engaged in OR to decide among themselves who is "opposed to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎" which is OR and also a BLP vio, I have remove the vios yet they are continually restored in violation of BLP and BURDEN. So either block me for being really wrong on BLP or protect the article at this version. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor I'll admit that I don't know much about this subject, but given the discussion on the talk page (as well as reading the article), it appears that the only person that disagrees about all this is you. And I doubt any admin is going to protect your preferred version of the article. BTW, weren't you already told about throwing around F-bombs when you don't get your way? You really need to put a halt on the forum-shopping spree. Erpert 19:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the OP's request for a block, for tendentious editing.- MrX 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is now protected, but gonna ask for the hell of it, Erpert, what forum shopping? And be aware, usually when I come here it is me who gets in the shite. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support OP's block request. Tendentious editing, forum shopping, edit warring. OP's claims of BLP violation do not appear to be valid. The four BLP's I've checked have all been accurate. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Sorry Black Kite, but I disagree with closing the section. Darkness is refusing to collaborate on the talk page besides repeating vague one sentence claims that the article violates blp. No other editor has so far agreed with his assessment, and not a single example of a problem has so far been produced, despite repeated requests. I believe the article should be unprotected so the content can be reintroduced (per consensus), and if Darkness persists in blanking sourced content without providing a specific rationale, his request for a block should be granted.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? chatting away quite amicably. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think this is just a little chat and not a discussion trying to resolve YOUR PROBLEM that YOU CREATED, then the article needs to be revised and the discussion needs to be ended so we can stop wasting our time. JayJay 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I figured potential BLP violations were everyones problem, and that such issues were resolved by discussion, not just ending it cos you happen to like the article as it was? But as you said, I have my head up my arse so what would I know? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The only person that has an issue with this article because of BLP violations is you right now. JayJay 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird, cos I see two editors over there who say much what I have. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Until recently nobody had a problem except you, huh weird ya I'm thinking the same thing. JayJay 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you never tire of being wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I just tire of you JayJay 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I also saw the notice on FTN. I've had the page on watch for a long time, since it was a question of whether we should have long quotes by the name of each individual. There clearly is a case to be answered about BLP, even if you think Darkness isn't pursuing it in the right way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree with deleting the entire list? QuackGuru (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you believe something to be a BLP violation you have to delete it, no? It's then the responsibility of the people who want the material included to put a rationale. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Lindzen was on that list, yet he has written "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations" Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto pp 21-22 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

1. 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by JayJay (talk): Rv per WP:BLP. And do not misuse rollback again bud. (TW)"
2. 18:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Bluerasberry (talk): Again. this content is a BLP vio, so it stays out. BLP is not negotiable for gods sake. (TW)"
3. 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Bluerasberry (talk): Everything is BLP, rv per BLP. (TW)"
4. 19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): Read BLP, and stop now. (TW)"
5. 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rhododendrites (talk): BLP is not negotiable. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning on talk page Continued reverts? QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting attention from another admin

As Mann jess notes above, Black Kite's actions in protecting an edit warrior's gutted article, while in good faith, are wrong headed and quite damaging.

1. Darkness Shines, as the diffs indicate above, engaged in a disruptive mass deletion of content after nominating this article for deletion
2. Darkness Shines followed the deletion by a prolonged edit war, well past 3RR while several other editors urged him to take his content dispute to the talk page.
3. Darkness Shines was reported here and on the edit warring noticeboard, but those incidents were closed and his actions shielded and reinforced by Black Kite -- who didn't so much as leave a message on Darkness Shines's talk page about the incident. (Although the latter just removes any warnings on his talk pages anyway).
4. For hours, Darkness Shines did nothing other than remove content or justify the removal using absolute, non-negotiable WP:VAGUEWAVE, instructing others to read policies ad nauseum while refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Although his technique entirely rests on wikilawyering and brute force, he nonetheless demonstrates either poor understanding of the policies or otherwise applies bad faith interpretations of said policies (for example "You cannot categorize a person as something which they themselves have explicitly stated they are not").
5. Black Kite's actions are particularly damaging because now, unless someone finds Black Kite's disclaimer at the top of the lengthy AfD discussion, the article people will be weighing in on (the version of the article that was protected) is a disgrace. What are visible are the BLP accusations without the consensus-based equilibrium version of the article there for people to judge for themselves.
   • A user who sees the page is protected in the current state will understand the protection to mean there is, in fact, something egregious that had to be removed -- that administrator attention was needed because it was so bad.
   • In an attempt to err on the side of BLP caution, Black Kite has disregarded consensus built on extensive discussion and even an ARBCOM ruling, and bypassed any attempts at discussion (even saying that it is because he protected it that he will not weigh in) and thus rewarded this disruptive edit warrior
6. Darkness Shines has made clear that he will not compromise and vows to do WP:BATTLE over this, using nothing other than absolute terms (e.g. "this will never go in the article.") His one-man defense of his actions on the article talk page has since exploded into redundant and non-productive calls for people to read policy with scant (none at all until recently) explanation of why the policy even applies, general incivility, and personal attacks.

Darkness Shines has been successful in beginning a productive discussion on the AfD page. While I don't think it'll result in deletion, it would be nice if the discussion led to page improvements -- maybe even adding/removing content with the productive suggestions and criticisms of other users. But the page cannot be improved currently! While the AfD process runs its course, the page needs to be restored and unprotected. Also, because the methods employed by Darkness Shines have been entirely disruptive so far -- but shielded on the Edit Warring noticeboard and elsewhere by Black Kite -- Darkness Shines should be prevented from editing the page at least until the AfD is done. To be clear, though, I'm not saying Black Kite acted in bad faith -- only that I think he made a wrong and damaging decision and has not shown any indication that he's interested to fix it. --— Rhododendrites |  23:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, before the next bottle of wine kicks in, do you actually hope to get from this? Other than to show a wilful disregard for BLP on the talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I second this. Please remove the protection on this article and restore the status quo content. A single editor should not be allowed to stonewall everyone else using irrational arguments and insults. At this point, the page protection is completely unwarranted. If Darkness Shines reverts even once, he should be blocked to prevent further disruption.- MrX 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently no admin is willing to touch this subject and just reward Darkness for his blatant and disruptive edits with no real justification of his actions. This is getting a bit ridiculous as many users have tried to compromise with this user but has no indication of doing so. Something needs to be done instead of just sitting and watching and several users have disagreed with Black Kites decision and asked for the page to be reverted to its original state before the AfD nomination but nobody seems to respond. JayJay 04:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• All anyone needs do is look here We have a BLP who in his own words, said "I do not disagree with the consencus" but his own words are not good enough, op eds ad blog posts seems better that this mans own fucking words, Darkness Shines (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (U

He absolutely did not say that, and this has already been explained to you. Directly misquoting him to misrepresent his position and the problem is insanely disruptive. Lindzen, in fact, said the precise opposite of what you just "quoted" him saying. I'm blown away by how disruptive you're willing to be to "win". The fact is that consensus opposes your repeated claim that this is a BLP concern, and we should listen to that community consensus until you're able to change it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of contentious BLP material on a talk page

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

Roccodrift (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted contentious unsourced material about Amanda Marcotte in violation of WP:BLP here, here and here despite three warnings: #1 #2 #3. Considering how often he quotes WP:BLP in content disputes, I would certainly expect him to adhere to it.- MrX 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I agreed, blatant violation despite three warnings, blocked 24 hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the dumbest things to get blocked for that I have seen in some time. Mr. X read-added actual contentious BLP material into the Robertson article and then complains about the discussion? Arzel (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

...which came in here. And then got edit warred to death. If you want to try and slice that knot, be my guest... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And so it begins. MilesMoney (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Accusations that IPs are socks of a banned user. When I have reverted this on the basis that there is no evidence that the IP is a sock there have been accusation of meatpuppetry.

1. Józef Kowalski Accuses 213.49.104.71 (talk · contribs) of being "Robert", presumably referring to User Ryoung122. Note that this IP is located in Brussels. I also note that the IP provides no edit summary and that Robert Young is extremely unlikely to have edited any longevity related articles without commenting (usually to promote his own epertise).
2. List of people with the longest marriages. and accuses 81.11.203.160 (talk · contribs) and 213.49.104.90 (talk · contribs) of being socks. These IPs are also from Brussels. Claims to have restored to "last clean version". A blanket reversion of (mostly) valid changes.
3. List of oldest twins. Another claim to restoration of "last clean version". Seems to have followed 83.134.143.22 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same person as other IPs as the location is Brussles) from above and blanket reverted all changes although again they appear to be valid.
4. Accusations of meatpuppetry: and . Another clear example of this user throwing around false accusations and attempting to bully other editors. Joefromrandb seems to be under the impression that I am one of the GRG fan club which is so far from the truth it is actually laughable.

DerbyCountyinNZ 23:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just slower tonight, but it took me a while to realise what's going on. DerbyCountyinNZ is saying that Joe's making baseless accusations regarding edits to the following pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Accusations of sock puppetry with no apparent evidence. Accusations of meat puppetry with no evidence. Sorry if that wasn't clear. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's amusing that Derby has reported his own edit-warring. Last time I reverted this user's errors, he got his buddy, administrator Canadian Paul to block me. Apparently he considers himself so bulletproof that he's brazen enough to make multiple baseless reverts and then report someone else. A small group of users have long asserted ownership of all longevity-related articles. It would be nice if these articles were eventually returned to the community, but it really isn't an ANi issue. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been involved in this area, but it looks more or less the same from when I was there, so if I may quickly comment before returning to isolation mode. The IPs don't strike me as being Ryoung122, because as DerbyCountyinNZ says usually Ryoung122 hastens to point out his work in the GRG. There are plenty of other IPs who edit the topic area who likely come from the Yahoo World's Oldest People group, to which Ryoung122 is openly a contributor; one could debate whether it's a meatpuppetting issue, but my experience has been they'll come over without invitation. A lot of times their edits are less than helpful, and I frequently found myself reverting them as well. DerbyCountyinNZ and I didn't always see eye-to-eye on some of the MoS issues in that project, but he's absolutely not one of the Yahoo WOP acolytes (a look at the archives of Talk:List of the verified oldest people should show that) and has always been willing to discuss things. Although I generally agree with the thrust of Joefromrandb's edits, I can see why his approach is somewhat off-putting. If he could write with a little more tact, I think the issues at each article could be resolved without too much difficulty. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely-banned editor using sockpuppet currently

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

I've opened a new investigation at SPI (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/TJ_Spyke) but the IP sock appears to be editing currently.
As I said on the investigation page, the IP sock passes the DUCK test by being a known prior sock and editing in the exact same manner (multiple violations of WP:R2D to the point where an annoyance becomes a major disruption). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wōdenhelm's sig

Wōdenhelm insists on using a signature which contains 2 images (File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg and File:Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg), despite the fact that I told this user that images in sigs are against policy. How should I procede? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Displaying the confederate flag is a problem in itself, IMO. Erpert 06:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Posted a message on his talk regarding this. Ethically 07:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The rebel flag in and of itself should not be considered problematic, it is strictly the use of images in a signature that is disruptive. The solution is simple: if user does not agree to stop using the images, an indefinite block for disruption and blatant disregard for accepted standards is appropriate, though I would point out the signature page is a guideline, not a policy. This block can and should be removed contingent on the removal of images from the signature. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why not try asking the editor politely? We've got three non-admins on his talkpage threatening him with blocks and accusing him of incivility. No wonder his only response has been "go away". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

He was asked politely by an admin, and now a couple of non-admins have chipped in. Not sure how much more politely you were looking for, but the original request was just fine. I'll pretty much guarantee that his first edit after being advised of this ANI filing better be either a) here on ANI, b) on his talkpage, or c) with a newly-minted signature or else he will receive a brand-new block for New Year's! ES&L 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of extreme block-on-sight violations, the first step I take (other than repairing the damage done, in some cases) is to talk to the user. I did it in this case before coming here, and got a "no" and a "go away". And I didn't threaten him with a block (although I'm capable of giving one) - that was other users, after he gave these answers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to you both, this is the kind of politeness I would have appreciated if I was the user at the centre of the furore:
"Hello Suriel1981, I'm such-and-such, an administrator on Misplaced Pages. You're not in trouble but I need to talk to you about your signature. Our guidelines state clearly that editors should not use images in their signatures so I'm going to have to insist you remove the flags from your signature before you continue editing. If you need help doing that or you have any question then feel free to message me back."
Something along those lines. There's no way anyone could reasonably misunderstand or take offense at a friendly-but-direct approach. I only made my comment because I would have been offended if the initial message had been left on my talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty much a textbook example of how not to handle this situation. Trouts to everyone involved. Since the matter has been brought here, lets let some other editors intervene and the editors involved in the original pile-on can step away to avoid escalating the situation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Trout yourself first then. The first request, by Od Mishehu, was perfectly fine, and included the word "please". This user also used please in their second comment. Od Mishehu has acted exactly as they should've; they remained polite throughout, and escalated it to the only possible place. Given that Od Mishehu could've legitimately blocked Wodenhelm for their disruptive sig and refusal to change it, I fail to see why they are being accused of mishandling the situation... Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 21:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Aaaaaand here we have another example of inappropriate escalation. I thought Od Mishehu was a bit brusque myself, but that's a minor and forgivable issue, certainly, but the other editors involved in the pile-on turned up the heat too quickly. This isn't a BLP matter and there's no need for immediate action or threats of such, so let's all simmer down now. This is the sort of nonsense and chest-beating that creates stories by disgruntled editors of administrative "abuse". Policy will be upheld in the end, but how we get there is important too. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990

Norden1990 insists in reverting a redirect link instead of expanding an article that I created:

Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Demographics history of Harghita County
  • see here

And also on other articles he revertes sourced text related to the war-criminal and anti-semite Miklos Horty.

• Miklos Horty

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy&diff=588510765&oldid=588509406
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Miklós_Horthy&diff=588407432&oldid=588382904

calling vandalism while he actually is deleted sourced information about this war-criminal.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

With his edits (can be cataloged as anti-semite) Norden1990 reverts sources text about the war criminal Miklos Horty.

And, YES, he was blocked before for edit-war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Norden1990

15:03, 14 July 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Norden1990 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi)

2QW4 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Other edit-war 3 times edit-war, see Hungarian discrimination against Roma

• 1st time https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarian_discrimination_against_Roma&curid=16371215&action=history
• 2nd time https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarian_discrimination_against_Roma&diff=588521778&oldid=588520253